Queens-Roosevelt Med. Rehab, P.C. v Alea Care of Gab Robins Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50867(U))

Decided on May 22, 2014

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Maureen A. Healy, J.), entered June 20, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking to vacate so much of a prior order of the same court (Cheree A. Buggs, J.) entered May 10, 2011 as granted, on default, the branch of a motion by Alea North America Insurance Company (sued herein as Alea Care of GAB Robins Ins. Co.) (Alea) seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover $13,571.37 from Alea.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the Civil Court, by order dated May 10, 2011, granted, on default, a motion by Alea North America Insurance Company (sued herein as Alea Care of GAB Robins Ins. Co.) (Alea) seeking summary judgment (1) dismissing so much of the complaint as was asserted against GAB Robins and (2) dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover the sum of $13,571.37 from Alea. Plaintiff subsequently moved to, among other things, vacate so much of that order as granted the branch of the motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover the sum of $13,571.37 from Alea. By order dated June 20, 2011, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion.

A claim of law office failure may be accepted as a reasonable excuse for a default where the claim is supported by a “detailed and credible” explanation of the default or defaults at issue (Henry v Kuveke, 9 AD3d 476, 479 [2004]). Conclusory and unsubstantiated claims of law office failure are insufficient (see Lugauer v Forest City Ratner Co., 44 AD3d 829, 830 [2007] Wechsler v First Unum Life Ins. Co., 295 AD2d 340, 341 [2002]). Here, plaintiff’s attorney alleged only that opposition to the motion had been served upon Alea, and that it was “unknown why the attorney who appeared in court on May 10, 2011 did not have the written opposition.” This statement did not “adequately detail and substantiate the alleged law office failure” (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Preferred Trucking Serv. Corp., 42 Misc 3d 88 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.