December 19, 2011

Crossbridge Diagnostic Radiology v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52294(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts considered by the court were that Crossbridge Diagnostic Radiology, as the assignee of Crystal Hoseine, appealed from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York denying their motion to vacate a prior order granting defendant's unopposed motion for summary judgment. The main issue decided was whether the Civil Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to vacate a prior order granting defendant's unopposed motion for summary judgment. The holding of the case was that the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to vacate the prior order, as plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its failure to submit written opposition to defendant's motion. Therefore, the order was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Crossbridge Diagnostic Radiology v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52294(U))

Crossbridge Diagnostic Radiology v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52294(U)) [*1]

Crossbridge Diagnostic Radiology v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co.

2011 NY Slip Op 52294(U) [34 Misc 3d 128(A)]

Decided on December 19, 2011

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 19, 2011

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : RIOS, J.P., WESTON and GOLIA, JJ
2010-1108 K C.

Crossbridge Diagnostic Radiology as Assignee of CRYSTAL HOSEINE, Appellant,
against
Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dawn Jimenez Salta, J.), entered March 11, 2010. The order denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior order granting defendant’s unopposed motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first party no-fault benefits, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior order granting defendant’s unopposed motion for summary judgment, since plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its failure to submit written opposition to defendant’s motion (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]). Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Rios, J.P., Weston and Golia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 19, 2011