Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Josephine Ogunmoyin, appellant, v. 1515 Broadway Fee Owner, LLC, et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents, SL Green Realty Corp., et al., defendants-respondents; Broadway Restaurant Associates, LLC, doing business as Bolzano's, third- party defendant-respondent.
Argued—May 17, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated April 16, 2010, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate so much of an order of the same court dated November 13, 2009, as, upon her default, granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
To vacate so much of the order dated November 13, 2009, as was entered upon the plaintiff's default in opposing the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentionally meritorious opposition to the motions for summary judgment (see Joseph v. GMAC Leasing Corp., 44 AD3d 905, 905; Rockland Tr. Mix, Inc. v. Rockland Enters., Inc., 28 AD3d 630, 630; Henry v. Kuveke, 9 AD3d 476, 479). While law office failure can be accepted as a reasonable excuse in the exercise of a court's sound discretion, the movant must submit supporting facts to explain and justify the default, and mere neglect is not accepted as a reasonable excuse (see Morrison v. Rosenberg, 278 A.D.2d 392, 392; Cole–Hatchard v. Grand Union, 270 A.D.2d 447, 447; De Vito v. Marine Midland Bank, 100 A.D.2d 530, 531).
Here, the plaintiff's proffered excuse of law office failure was vague and unsubstantiated and, thus, did not constitute a reasonable excuse for the default (see Knowles v. Schaeffer, 70 AD3d 897, 898; Chechen v. Spencer, 68 AD3d 801, 802; Murray v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 52 AD3d 792, 793; St. Luke's Roosevelt Hosp. v. Blue Ridge Ins. Co., 21 AD3d 946, 947). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to vacate so much of the order dated November 13, 2009, as was entered upon her default in opposing the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Star Indus., Inc. v Innovative Beverages, Inc., 55 AD3d 903, 904; Antoine v. Bee, 26 AD3d 306; Matter of Hye–Young Chon v. Country–Wide Ins. Co., 22 AD3d 849).
In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the plaintiff's remaining contention.
MASTRO, J.P., DICKERSON, CHAMBERS and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2010–06001 (Index No. 500021 /06)
Decided: June 21, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)