Oyebola v. Makuch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oyebola v. Makuch

10 A.D.3d 600, 781 N.Y.S.2d 455, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10585

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 7, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 10 A.D.3d 600 (Oyebola v. Makuch) 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

Oyebola v. Makuch, 10 A.D.3d 600, 781 N.Y.S.2d 455, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10585 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated July 10, 2003, which, inter alia, denied that branch of her motion which was to vacate an order of the same court dated February 26, 2003, which, upon her default in opposing the motion, granted the defendants’ 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).

[601]*601Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To warrant vacatur of an order entered on default, a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default in opposing a defendant’s motion and a meritorious cause of action (see Beale v Yepes, 309 AD2d 886 [2003]). Here, the plaintiff failed to establish that her claim of serious injury was meritorious.

In light of the forgoing, we need not reach the plaintiffs remaining contention. Smith, J.P., S. Miller, Adams, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated July 10, 2003, which, inter alia, denied that branch of her motion which was to vacate an order of the same court dated February 26, 2003, which, upon her default in opposing the motion, granted the defendants’ 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).

[601]*601Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To warrant vacatur of an order entered on default, a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default in opposing a defendant’s motion and a meritorious cause of action (see Beale v Yepes, 309 AD2d 886 [2003]). Here, the plaintiff failed to establish that her claim of serious injury was meritorious.

In light of the forgoing, we need not reach the plaintiffs remaining contention. Smith, J.P., S. Miller, Adams, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 600, 781 N.Y.S.2d 455, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oyebola-v-makuch-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack