Itskovich v. Lichenstadter
Decision Date | 01 December 2003 |
Docket Number | 2003-00750. |
Citation | 2003 NY Slip Op 19181,767 N.Y.S.2d 859,2 A.D.3d 406 |
Parties | DAVID ITSKOVICH, Respondent, v. LEA LICHENSTADTER et al., Appellants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the order dated November 27, 2001, is reinstated.
A plaintiff attempting to vacate an order granting a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, upon his or her default in opposing the motion, must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action (see Roussodimou v Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568 [1997]). Here, the only competent medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff failed to indicate that his alleged injuries were causally related to the subject motor vehicle accident (see Verrelli v Tronolone, 230 AD2d 789 [1996]). Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to establish that his claim of serious injury was meritorious, and the Supreme Court should have denied his motion to vacate his default in failing to oppose the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Catalano v. Kopmann
...v. City of New Rochelle, 66 A.D.3d 760, 886 N.Y.S.2d 764; Morris v. Edmond, 48 A.D.3d 432, 850 N.Y.S.2d 641; Itskovich v. Lichenstadter, 2 A.D.3d 406, 407, 767 N.Y.S.2d 859). The submissions of Jeffrey Rosenberg, another chiropractor for the plaintiff, also failed to raise a triable issue o......
- Vapnersh v. Tabak
- Horowitz v. Griggs
- Izhak v. New York City Transit Authority