Mora v. Scarpitta

52 A.D.3d 663, 861 N.Y.S.2d 110
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 17, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 663 (Mora v. Scarpitta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mora v. Scarpitta, 52 A.D.3d 663, 861 N.Y.S.2d 110 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J.), entered March 20, 2007, which denied her motion to vacate an order of the same court dated September 21, 2006, granting the defendants’ unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In order to prevail on a motion to vacate a default in opposing a motion, a moving party is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious claim (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; Montague v Rivera, 50 AD3d 656 [2008]; Perez v Han Ki Man, 39 AD3d 521 [2007]; Itskovich v Lichenstadter, 2 AD3d 406, 407 [2003]; Beale v Yepes, 309 AD2d 886, 887 [2003]). Here, the plaintiff failed to do either. The conclusory reasons for the default offered by the plaintiffs counsel were not substantiated by detailed facts and thus were insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse (see Montague v Rivera, 50 AD3d 656 [2008]; Juarbe v City of New York, 303 AD2d 462 [2003]). Further, the plaintiff failed to submit competent medical evidence demonstrating that she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject automobile accident (see Montague v Rivera, 50 AD3d 656 [2008]; Itskovich v Lichenstadter, 2 AD3d at 407; Beale v Yepes, 309 AD2d 886 [2003]; Waaland v Weiss, 228 AD2d 435, 436 [1996]). Skelos, J.P, Santucci, Covello, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lee v. Barnett
134 A.D.3d 908 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
203 East Post Road, LLC v. AMRA Electrical Corp.
49 Misc. 3d 56 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Blythe v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.
123 A.D.3d 1073 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pietranico
33 Misc. 3d 528 (New York Supreme Court, 2011)
Gonzalez v. New York Racing Ass'n
69 A.D.3d 673 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 A.D.3d 663, 861 N.Y.S.2d 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mora-v-scarpitta-nyappdiv-2008.