| Tatarinova v Boo |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05321 [119 AD3d 771] |
| July 16, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| 1 Ludmila Tatarinova et al.,Appellants, v Kenneth James Boo, Jr., et al.,Respondents. |
Gary Tsirelman, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Stefan Belinfanti of counsel), forappellants.
Richard T. Lau, Jericho, N.Y. (Joseph G. Gallo of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal froman order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated January 3, 2013,which denied their motion to vacate a prior order of the same court dated December 1,2011, granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complainton the ground that the plaintiff Ludmilla Tatarinova did not sustain a serious injurywithin the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), upon their failure tooppose the defendants' motion.
Ordered that the order dated January 3, 2013, is affirmed, with costs.
A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon his or her default in opposing amotion must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentiallymeritorious opposition to the motion (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Santos v Penske Truck LeasingCo., 105 AD3d 1029 [2013]; Political Mktg., Int'l, Inc. v Jaliman, 67 AD3d 661,661-662 [2009]). "A motion to vacate a default is addressed to the sound discretion ofthe court" (Vujanic vPetrovic, 103 AD3d 791, 792 [2013]). Here, the Supreme Court providentlyexercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion to vacate their default based ontheir failure to make the requisite showing. Mastro, J.P., Hall, Lott, Austin and Duffy, JJ.,concur.