From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sicari v. Wong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 27, 2001
286 A.D.2d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted June 20, 2001

August 27, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated September 25, 2000, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate an order of the same court dated December 13, 1999, granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Kathleen Sicari did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), upon their default in opposing the motion.

Mallilo Grossman, Flushing, N.Y. (Francesco Pomara, Jr., of counsel), for appellants.

Ronald I. Lemberger, Hempstead, N.Y. (Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker Sauer [Jonathan A. Dachs] of counsel), for respondent Dawn M. Cicolello.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P. SONDRA MILLER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To vacate a default, a plaintiff must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action ( see, CPLR 5015 [a]; Epps v. LaSalle Bus, 271 A.D.2d 400). In this case, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate either. Accordingly, the court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion.


Summaries of

Sicari v. Wong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 27, 2001
286 A.D.2d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Sicari v. Wong

Case Details

Full title:KATHLEEN SICARI, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. HUNG YUEN WONG, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 27, 2001

Citations

286 A.D.2d 489 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
729 N.Y.S.2d 642

Citing Cases

Wayloo v. Sheikh

We affirm. In support of those branches of his motion which were to vacate his defaults, the plaintiff failed…

St. Rose v. McMorrow

Ordered that the order dated September 8, 2006 is affirmed, with costs. In order to vacate the order entered…