Grinberg v Raufov

Annotate this Case
[*1] Grinberg v Raufov 2004 NY Slip Op 51635(U) Decided on December 15, 2004 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 15, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ.
2004-288 K C

ALINA GRINBERG, Appellant,

against

YAKOV RAUFOV, ANNA LOSHINSKAYA, ONETTA MURRAY, and WILLIE MURRAY, Respondents.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (B. Bayne, J.), entered November 26, 2003, which denied her motion to vacate an order entered on default on December 3, 2002 and, upon vacatur, to deny the underlying motion by defendants Onetta Murray and Willie Murray and the cross motion by defendants Yakov Raufov and Anna Loshinskaya for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

On July 5, 1997, plaintiff was injured in an accident in which she was a passenger in the automobile of defendants Yakov Raufov and Anna Loshinskaya when it collided with the vehicle of defendants Onetta Murray and Willie Murray. The Murrays moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff did not satisfy the threshold requirement of suffering a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Defendants Yakov Raufov and Anna Loshinskaya cross-moved for the same relief. The plaintiff's attorney orally argued the motion but did not submit written opposition. By order entered December 3, 2002, the motion and cross motion were granted on default. Plaintiff subsequently moved to vacate the default order, which motion was denied and this appeal ensued.

The plaintiff's attorney did not present a reasonable excuse for the default nor did he come forward with a reasonable excuse for the delay in moving to vacate the default. Accordingly, the lower court properly denied the motion.
Decision Date: December 15, 2004

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.