| Delvalle v Mercedes Benz USA, LLC |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03646 [117 AD3d 893] |
| May 21, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Danny Delvalle, Plaintiff, v Mercedes BenzUSA, LLC, et al., Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. Chetum Singh et al.,Third-Party Defendants-Respondents, et al., Third-PartyDefendants. |
Buckley Law Group, P.A., New York, N.Y. (Alan R. Levy of counsel), fordefendants/third-party plaintiffs-appellants.
Russo & Toner, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Mitchell A. Greene of counsel), forthird-party defendants-respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants third-partyplaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), datedMay 4, 2012, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate somuch of an order of the same court dated March 11, 2011, as granted the cross motion ofthe third-party defendants Chetum Singh and Ramjit Singh for summary judgmentdismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order dated May 4, 2012, is affirmed, with costs.
"In order to vacate a default in opposing a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), themoving party is required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his or her default and apotentially meritorious opposition to the motion" (Rocco v Family Foot Ctr., 94 AD3d 1077, 1079 [2012]; see Braynin v Dunleavy, 109AD3d 571 [2013]; Thapt vLutheran Med. Ctr., 89 AD3d 837 [2011]). "A motion to vacate a default isaddressed to the sound discretion of the motion court" (Braynin v Dunleavy, 109AD3d at 571; see Kohn vKohn, 86 AD3d 630 [2011]).
Here, the defendants/third-party plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable excusefor their default in opposing the cross motion of the third-party defendants Chetum Singhand Ramjit Singh for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar asasserted against them (see Turkov Daffy's, Inc., 111 AD3d 615 [2013]; Tsikotis v Pioneer Bldg. Corp., 96 AD3d 936 [2012]). Inlight of the defendants/third-party plaintiffs' failure to provide a reasonable excuse fortheir default, we need not evaluate whether they demonstrated a potentially meritoriousopposition to the cross motion (see Turko v Daffy's, Inc., 111 AD3d at 617; Herrera v MTA Bus Co., 100AD3d 962, 963 [2012]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied thedefendants/third-party plaintiffs' motion to vacate so much of an order dated March 11,2011, as granted the cross motion of the third-party [*2]defendants Chetum Singh and Ramjit Singh for summaryjudgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against them. Balkin,J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.