Ventura v. Ahmed
This text of Ventura v. Ahmed (Ventura v. Ahmed) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Court Decisions Resources About
Ventura v Ahmed
2026 NY Slip Op 02478
April 23, 2026
Appellate Division, First 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.
Christina Ventura, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
Zuel Ahmed, Defendant-Respondent.
Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026
Index No. 26488/17|Appeal No. 6465|Case No. 2025-03073|
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kennedy, González, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, JJ.
Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff, PLLC, New York (Michael Sanders of counsel), for appellant.
Marjorie E. Bornes, Freeport, for respondent.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered on or about April 9, 2025, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d), unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.
No appeal lies as of right from an order entered on a party's default (see CPLR 5511). Although plaintiff purported to file papers opposing defendant's motion, the order granting summary judgment to defendant rejected those papers as untimely and indicated that it granted defendant's motion because of plaintiff's default in responding (see Estrella v 20 Bruckner, LLC, — AD3d —, —, 2026 NY Slip Op 01453, *1 [1st Dept 2026]). Accordingly, plaintiff's proper remedy was to move to vacate her default and appeal the denial of that motion (see e.g. Matter of Diamonds R-Us Ltd. v Rafaello & Co. Inc., 238 AD3d 664, 664-665 [1st Dept 2025]; Manrique v Delgado, 195 AD3d 554 [1st Dept 2021]).
In light of the foregoing, we decline to consider plaintiff's remaining arguments concerning the merits of the motion.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: April 23, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI