Uddin v. Mirza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Uddin v. Mirza

10 A.D.3d 722, 781 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11061

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 10 A.D.3d 722 (Uddin v. Mirza) 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

Uddin v. Mirza, 10 A.D.3d 722, 781 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11061 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Huttner, J.), dated May 20, 2003, which denied his motion to vacate an order of the same court dated November 19, 2002, dismissing the action upon his default in proceeding to trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In order to vacate his default in proceeding to trial, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568 [1997]). The plaintiff failed, however, to submit any competent evidence establishing that he sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Itskovich v Lichenstadter, 2 AD3d 406 [2003]). Accordingly, he failed to establish a meritorious cause of action and the Supreme Court properly denied the motion. 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 the Supreme Court, Queens County (Huttner, J.), dated May 20, 2003, which denied his motion to vacate an order of the same court dated November 19, 2002, dismissing the action upon his default in proceeding to trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In order to vacate his default in proceeding to trial, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568 [1997]). The plaintiff failed, however, to submit any competent evidence establishing that he sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Itskovich v Lichenstadter, 2 AD3d 406 [2003]). Accordingly, he failed to establish a meritorious cause of action and the Supreme Court properly denied the motion. Smith, J.P., S. Miller, Adams, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 722, 781 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uddin-v-mirza-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack