Thomas v. Sow

Opinion

Thomas v Sow

2026 NY Slip Op 04887

August 5, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Carolyn Thomas, respondent,

v

Abou Sow, et al., appellants, et al., defendant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on August 5, 2026

2024-07594, (Index No. 503354/19)

Betsy Barros, J.P.

Valerie Brathwaite Nelson

Barry E. Warhit

Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., Melville, NY (Roman Kravchenko and Pierre Piazza of counsel), for appellants.

Krentsel Guzman Herbert, LLP (Horn Appellate Group, Brooklyn, NY [Scott T. Horn, Ross S. Friscia, and Nicholas Bruno], of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Abou Sow and Lux Credit Consultants, LLC, appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Robin K. Sheares, J.), entered July 17, 2024. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, upon an amended order of the same court dated February 26, 2024, granting the plaintiff's unopposed motion pursuant to CPLR 5003-a to direct the entry of a judgment awarding her the amount of a settlement, plus interest, costs and disbursements, and attorneys' fees, and an order of the same court dated June 25, 2024, denying the motion of the defendants Abou Sow and Lux Credit Consultants, LLC, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate so much of the amended order dated February 26, 2024, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5003-a to direct the entry of a judgment awarding her interest on the settlement amount, costs and disbursements, and attorneys' fees, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants Abou Sow and Lux Credit Consultants, LLC, in the total amount of $65,857.94.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In February 2019, following a car accident, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants Abou Sow and Lux Credit Consultants, LLC (hereinafter together the defendants), and another defendant. In August 2023, the parties agreed to settle the matter for the amount of $60,000.

In September 2023, the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 5003-a to direct the entry of a judgment awarding her the settlement amount, plus interest, costs and disbursements, and attorneys' fees. The defendants did not oppose the motion. In an amended order dated February 26, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion.

In June 2024, the defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate so much of the amended order dated February 26, 2024, as awarded the plaintiff interest on the settlement amount, costs and disbursements, and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff opposed the motion. In an order dated June 25, 2024, the Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion. A judgment, upon the order, was entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the total amount of $65,857.94, [*2]representing the original settlement amount, plus interest, costs and disbursements, and attorneys' fees. The defendants appeal.

A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon his or her default in opposing a motion must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Elsman, 240 AD3d 936, 937). Where a party asserts law office failure as an excuse, "'it must provide a detailed and credible explanation of the default'" (HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Aquaviva, 177 AD3d 713, 714 [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting People's United Bank v Latini Tuxedo Mgt., LLC, 95 AD3d 1285, 1286). "Although a court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse, a conclusory, undetailed, and uncorroborated claim of law office failure does not amount to a reasonable excuse" (Cross v Woodbine Caterers, 241 AD3d 1263, 1264 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Joseph, 209 AD3d 633, 634).

Here, the defendants' bare allegation of law office failure was insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default in opposing the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 5003-a (see Cross v Woodbine Caterers, 241 AD3d at 1264; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Aquaviva, 177 AD3d at 714). Since the defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default in opposing the motion, it is unnecessary to consider whether they demonstrated a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion (see Cross v Woodbine Caterers, 241 AD3d at 1264; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Elsman, 240 AD3d at 937). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate stated portions of the amended order dated February 26, 2024.

BARROS, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

2024-07594 DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Carolyn Thomas, respondent, v Abou Sow,

et al., appellants, et al., defendant.

(Index No. 503354/19)

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered July 17, 2024. Motion by the appellants, inter alia, in effect, to strike stated portions of the respondent's brief on the grounds that they improperly raise arguments for the first time on appeal and refer to matter dehors the record. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated March 17, 2025, that branch of the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is

ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to strike stated portions of the respondent's brief is denied.

BARROS, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court