Chepilko v Cornell Univ.

[*1] Chepilko v Cornell Univ. 2005 NY Slip Op 52025(U) [10 Misc 3d 132(A)] Decided on December 13, 2005 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 13, 2005
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: DECEMBER 13, 2005 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT November 2005 Term Suarez, P.J., Davis, Schoenfeld, JJ.
570336/05

Sergei Chepilko, M.D., Ph.D., 570336/05 -aga

against

Cornell University, Hunter R. Rawlings III, President; Weill Medical College; Antonio M. Grotto Jr., M.D., Dean and Professor of Medicine; Lorraine J. Gudas, Ph.D., Chairman, Department of Pharmacology; and Hazel H. Szeto, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Pharmacology, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Respondents.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered July 26, 2004, which denied his motion to vacate a prior summary dismissal on default, and from an order, same court and Judge, entered September 17, 2004, denying his motion for reargument.

PER CURIAM:

Order (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered July 26, 2004, affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order denying reargument (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered September 17, 2004, dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

Plaintiff was fired assertedly for cause in September 2001, three months into a one-year contract of employment. Most of his complaint in Supreme Court was dismissed in July 2003, and the surviving claim for breach of contract was transferred to Civil Court pursuant to CPLR §325-d. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted on default in May 2004.

Plaintiff was required to show a reasonable excuse for his default and a meritorious cause of action. Plaintiff has failed to meaningfully challenge defendants' averment that he failed to complete his assigned laboratory tasks with requisite skill, instead claiming that his termination was without cause and for the ulterior motive of trying to cover up illegal [*2]activities on defendants' part. Plaintiff has failed to offer a factual basis for any of these allegations.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.
Decision Date: December 13, 2005