Silva v Honeydew Cab Corp.

2014 NY Slip Op 02283 [116 AD3d 691]

April 2, 2014

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Elizabeth Silva, Appellant, v Honeydew Cab Corp.et al., Respondents.

—[*1]Levine and Wiss, PLLC, Mineola, N.Y. (Anthony A. Ferrante), for appellant.

Gerber & Gerber, PLLC, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Thomas Torto and Jason Levine ofcounsel), 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), forrespondents MV Transportation, Inc., and Paul Tanis.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated May 30, 2012, whichdenied 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 ofthe defendants MV Transportation, Inc., and Paul Tanis, for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them on the ground that theplaintiff 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 defendantsappearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In order to vacate an order made upon a plaintiff's failure to oppose a motion, theplaintiff is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and apotentially meritorious opposition to the motion (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Jong Il Lee v En Salto, 107AD3d 950, 950 [2013]; Santos v Penske Truck Leasing Co., 105 AD3d 1029, 1029[2013]; Herrera v MTA BusCo., 100 AD3d 962, 963 [2012]). Whether an excuse is reasonable is adetermination within the discretion of the Supreme Court (see Herrera v MTA BusCo., 100 AD3d at 963). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretionin 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 AD3d 1029, 1030[2012]; cf. Simpson v TommyHilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 AD3d 389, 392 [2008]). Accordingly, we need notaddress whether the plaintiff demonstrated a potentially meritorious opposition to thosemotions (see Herrera v MTA Bus Co., 100 AD3d at 963). Balkin, J.P., Lott,Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.