Opinion
2014-04-2
Elizabeth SILVA, appellant, v. HONEYDEW CAB CORP., et al., respondents.
Levine and Wiss, PLLC, Mineola, N.Y. (Anthony A. Ferrante), for appellant. Gerber & Gerber, PLLC, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Thomas Torto and Jason Levine of counsel), for respondents Honeydew Cab Corp., Yellow Cab SLS Management Corp., and Ngwang T. Sherpa.
Levine and Wiss, PLLC, Mineola, N.Y. (Anthony A. Ferrante), for appellant. Gerber & Gerber, PLLC, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Thomas Torto and Jason Levine of counsel), for respondents Honeydew Cab Corp., Yellow Cab SLS Management Corp., and Ngwang T. Sherpa.
Gallo Vitucci & Klar, New York, N.Y. (Yolanda L. Ayala of counsel), for respondents MV Transportation, Inc., and Paul Tanis.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated May 30, 2012, which denied her unopposed motion to vacate an order of the same court entered April 18, 2011, which granted the unopposed motion of the defendants Honeydew Cab Corp., Yellow Cab SLS Management Corp., and Ngwang T. Sherpa, and the separate motion of the defendants MV Transportation, Inc., and Paul Tanis, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
In order to vacate an order made upon a plaintiff's failure to oppose a motion, the plaintiff is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion ( seeCPLR 5015[a][1]; Jong Il Lee v. En Salto, 107 A.D.3d 950, 950, 969 N.Y.S.2d 87;Santos v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., 105 A.D.3d 1029, 1029, 964 N.Y.S.2d 207;Herrera v. MTA Bus Co., 100 A.D.3d 962, 963, 954 N.Y.S.2d 631). Whether an excuse is reasonable is a determination within the discretion of the Supreme Court ( see Herrera v. MTA Bus Co., 100 A.D.3d at 963, 954 N.Y.S.2d 631). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in refusing to accept the plaintiff's explanation for failing to oppose the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment ( see Strunk v. Revenge Cab Corp., 98 A.D.3d 1029, 1030, 950 N.Y.S.2d 595;cf. Simpson v. Tommy Hilfiger, U.S.A., Inc., 48 A.D.3d 389, 392, 850 N.Y.S.2d 629). Accordingly, we need not address whether the plaintiff demonstrated a potentially meritorious opposition to those motions ( see Herrera v. MTA Bus Co., 100 A.D.3d at 963, 954 N.Y.S.2d 631).