Linda O'Connor, etc., appellant, v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center, et al., respondents. (2026)

Submitted—February 24, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

Q/

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Conrad D. Singer, J.), entered June 17, 2024.  The order denied the plaintiff's motion, among other things, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate an order of the same court dated September 6, 2023, inter alia, granting that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and thereupon, to deny the defendants' motion.

ORDERED that the order entered June 17, 2024, is affirmed, with costs.

Sally O'Connor (hereinafter the decedent) was admitted as a patient to the defendant Long Island Jewish Medical Center (hereinafter LIJ) for treatment of a urinary tract infection.  The decedent was assessed to be a fall risk, and LIJ implemented safety protocols to prevent the decedent from falling.  On June 10, 2018, the decedent was ambulating from a chair to her bed with the assistance of a patient engagement specialist, when she fell and sustained injuries.  The decedent was discharged from LIJ on June 19, 2018, to a nursing home.  She died in January 2020.

The plaintiff, as proposed administrator of the decedent's estate, commenced the instant action against LIJ and the defendant Northwell Health, Inc., alleging medical malpractice, negligence, and wrongful death.  The defendants moved, among other things, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.  In an order dated September 6, 2023, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendants' motion without considering the plaintiff's opposition papers, which the court found to be “untimely” filed.

Thereafter, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate the order dated September 6, 2023, and thereupon, to deny the defendants' motion, among other things, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.  In an order entered June 17, 2024, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion, concluding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious opposition to the defendants' motion.  The plaintiff appeals.

“A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon his or her default in opposing a motion for summary judgment must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion for summary judgment” (Ferreira v. Singh, 176 AD3d 782, 783–784;  see CPLR 5015[a][1];  Charles v. Nouveau El. Indus., Inc., 228 AD3d 612, 613).  “A motion to vacate a default is addressed to the sound discretion of the court” (Vujanic v. Petrovic, 103 AD3d 791, 792;  see Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Villanueva, 220 AD3d 978, 978).

“Summary judgment is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions” (Feinberg v. Feit, 23 AD3d 517, 519;  see Ivey v. Mbaidjol, 202 AD3d 1070, 1072).  “In order not to be considered speculative or conclusory, expert opinions in opposition should address specific assertions made by the movant's experts, setting forth an explanation of the reasoning and relying on specifically cited evidence in the record” (Tsitrin v. New York Community Hosp., 154 AD3d 994, 996 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Bum Yong Kim v North Shore Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 202 AD3d 653, 655).

Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious opposition to the defendants' motion.  On their motion, the defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting an expert's opinion establishing that LIJ did not deviate from accepted standards of care in assessing the decedent's condition and the degree of supervision necessary to prevent her from falling (see Murray v. Central Is. Healthcare, 205 AD3d 1036, 1037;  Losak v St. James Rehabilitation & Healthcare Ctr., 199 AD3d 671, 671–672).  The plaintiff failed to submit an expert opinion that specifically addressed the defense expert's assertions and that was not conclusory or speculative (see Murray v. Central Is. Healthcare, 205 AD3d at 1038;  Losak v St. James Rehabilitation & Healthcare Ctr., 199 AD3d at 672).

The parties' remaining contentions either need not be reached in light of our determination or are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate the order dated September 6, 2023, and thereupon, to deny the defendants' motion, among other things, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

DOWLING, J.P., VENTURA, GOLIA and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court