Philippi v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

16 A.D.3d 654, 791 N.Y.S.2d 444, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3312
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 28, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 654 (Philippi v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority) 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
Philippi v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 16 A.D.3d 654, 791 N.Y.S.2d 444, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3312 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kdtzes, J.), dated February 20, 2004, which denied his motion pursuant to CBLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate a prior order of the same court dated September 25, 2003, granting, without opposition, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[655]*655Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion to vacate his default in opposing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). The plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default. The plaintiffs attorney’s unsubstantiated denial of receipt of the defendants’ motion was insufficient to rebut the affirmation of service and the presumption of receipt (see Platonov v Sciabarra, 305 AD2d 651 [2003]; Truscello v Olympia Constr., 294 AD2d 350, 351 [2002]). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish, beyond speculation, the existence of a meritorious claim (see Rosado v Economy El. Co., 236 AD2d 598 [1997]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion to vacate. H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Degennaro
2018 NY Slip Op 5026 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Tsikotis v. Pioneer Building Corp.
96 A.D.3d 936 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Gonzalez v. New York Racing Ass'n
69 A.D.3d 673 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Caprio v. 1025 Manhattan Avenue Corp.
63 A.D.3d 656 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Ortega v. Bisogno & Meyerson
38 A.D.3d 510 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 A.D.3d 654, 791 N.Y.S.2d 444, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philippi-v-metropolitan-transportation-authority-nyappdiv-2005.