Wollman v. Seven Seas Union Sq. LLC

2025 NY Slip Op 03782

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: June 24, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 160682/20; Appeal No. 4626; Case No. 2024-04099
• Status: Published

Opinion

Wollman v Seven Seas Union Sq. LLC (2025 NY Slip Op 03782)

Wollman v Seven Seas Union Sq. LLC

2025 NY Slip Op 03782

Decided on June 24, 2025

Appellate Division, First Department

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

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

Decided and Entered: June 24, 2025
Before: Webber, J.P., Friedman, Kapnick, Higgitt, Michael, JJ.

Index No. 160682/20|Appeal No. 4626|Case No. 2024-04099|

[*1]Gayle Wollman, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Seven Seas Union Sq. LLC, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, for appellant.

Buratti, Turpin & Lenoff, New York (Richard O'Connell of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered on or about May 20, 2024, which denied plaintiff's motion to vacate an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about January 8, 2024, which granted, upon plaintiff's default, defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to vacate her default in opposing defendants' motion for summary judgment. Even if plaintiff offered a reasonable excuse for her default, she failed to show that she has a meritorious claim (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; see Dong v Howe, 219 AD3d 1219, 1219 [1st Dept 2023]). Defendants established prima facie that it was not foreseeable that plaintiff would trip over the foot of defendants' employee and, therefore, that defendants did not breach a duty of care owing to plaintiff (see Greene v Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co., 257 NY 190, 192 [1931]; Turso-Drasche v Banana Republic, LLC, 172 AD3d 485, 486 [1st Dept 2019]; Prado v City of New York, 19 AD3d 674, 674-675 [2d Dept 2005]). Plaintiff's proposed opposition to defendants' motion failed to raise an issue of fact.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: June 24, 2025