Conde v Zaganjor

[*1] Conde v Zaganjor 2014 NY Slip Op 50989(U) Decided on June 23, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 23, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., SOLOMON and ELLIOT, JJ.
2012-1557 Q C

Edwardo Conde, Appellant, -against

against

Asim Zaganjor and ELMA ZAGANJOR, Respondents. -and- DARRYL A. PRINCE and CONSOLIDATED EDISON, Defendants. ASIM ZAGANJOR and ELMA ZAGANJOR, Third-Party Plaintiffs, DARRYL A. PRINCE and CONSOLIDATED EDISON OF NEW YORK, INC., Third-Party Defendants.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered April 18, 2012. The order denied plaintiff's motion to vacate a prior order of the same court entered October 19, 2011 which had granted an unopposed motion by defendants Asim Zaganjor and Elma Zaganjor for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as was asserted against them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of an automobile accident, defendants Asim Zaganjor and Elma Zaganjor moved for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as was asserted against them. By order entered October 19, 2011, the Civil Court (Richard G. Latin, J.) granted the motion on default. Plaintiff moved to vacate the October 19, 2011 order, which motion was denied by order of the same court entered April 18, 2012. Plaintiff appeals from the April 18, 2012 order.

A plaintiff seeking to vacate an order entered upon his default is required to demonstrate, through the submission of supporting facts in evidentiary form, both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; Mora v Scarpitta, 52 AD3d 663 [2008]; Energy Brands, Inc. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 38 AD3d 591 [2007]). As plaintiff here failed [*2]to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to submit timely opposition papers to the motion for summary judgment, the Civil Court properly denied plaintiff's motion to vacate the October 19, 2011 order.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Solomon and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: June 23, 2014