From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

St. Rose v. McMorrow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 25, 2007
43 A.D.3d 1146 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2006-09750.

September 25, 2007.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), dated September 8, 2006, which denied that branch of his motion which was to vacate an order of the same court dated January 25, 2006, granting the defendant's unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Harmon, Linder, Rogowsky, New York, N.Y. (Mitchell Dranow of counsel), for appellant.

Susan B. Owens, White Plains, N.Y. (Joseph M. Zecca of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Crane, J.P., Ritter, Fisher, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order dated September 8, 2006 is affirmed, with costs.

In order to vacate the order entered upon his default in opposing the motion, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious opposition to the motion for summary judgment ( see Oyebola v Makuch, 10 AD3d 600, 601; Itskovich v Lichenstadter, 2 AD3d 406, 407; Sicari v Hung Yuen Wong, 286 AD2d 489). The plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion.


Summaries of

St. Rose v. McMorrow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 25, 2007
43 A.D.3d 1146 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

St. Rose v. McMorrow

Case Details

Full title:ERNEST ST. ROSE, Appellant, v. CHARLES McMORROW, Respondent

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

Date published: Sep 25, 2007

Citations

43 A.D.3d 1146 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 6980
842 N.Y.S.2d 534

Citing Cases

Simpson v. Hilfiger U.S.A

The defendant did not show that these failures of the Plaintiffs counsel were either intentional or part of a…

Rocco v. Family Foot Ctr.

The plaintiff appeals, and we reverse. In order to vacate a default in opposing a motion pursuant to CPLR…