What did the court decide?

The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the trial court's order was entered against the plaintiff for failing to timely respond, and such an order entered on default is not appealable as of right.

Who is affected by this decision?

Plaintiff Christina Ventura is affected because her appeal was dismissed; the defendant's summary judgment victory stands unless the plaintiff successfully vacates the default in the trial court.

Ventura's proper next step is to move in the trial court to vacate the default and seek to have her opposition papers considered; if that motion is denied, she may then appeal that denial.

Did the appellate court decide whether Ventura suffered a serious injury?

No. The court declined to address the merits of the serious-injury issue because it dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds related to the default.

Can this decision be appealed further?

This dismissal is of the appeal to the Appellate Division; if Ventura's motion to vacate is denied at trial court and she appeals that denial, further appellate review could follow depending on the outcome.

Ventura v. Ahmed

Docket Index No. 26488/17|Appeal No. 6465|Case No. 2025-03073|

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilDismissed

Filed: Apr 23, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Dismissed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02478
Docket numbers: Index No26488/17Appeal No6465Case No2025-03073

Appeal from an order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department dismissed Christina Ventura's appeal from a Bronx Supreme Court order that granted defendant Ahmed summary judgment dismissing her complaint for lack of a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d). The appellate court held the order was entered against plaintiff for failure to timely respond (a default), so the order was not appealable as of right. The proper procedure was to move to vacate the default and then appeal any denial. Because of that procedural defect, the court did not reach Ventura's substantive arguments on the motion's merits.

Issues Decided

Whether an appeal lies as of right from an order entered on a party's default.
Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment to defendant for lack of a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d) (not reached due to procedural bar).

Court's Reasoning

The court concluded that an order entered against a party in default is not appealable as of right under CPLR 5511. Because the trial court explicitly rejected plaintiff's opposition papers as untimely and granted the motion on the basis of plaintiff's default, the correct remedy was to move to vacate that default and appeal any denial of that motion. Given this procedural defect, the appellate court declined to consider Ventura's substantive challenges to the summary judgment ruling.

Authorities Cited

CPLR 5511
Estrella v 20 Bruckner, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 01453 (1st Dept 2026)
Matter of Diamonds R-Us Ltd. v Rafaello & Co. Inc.238 AD3d 664 (1st Dept 2025)
Manrique v Delgado195 AD3d 554 (1st Dept 2021)

Parties

Plaintiff: Christina Ventura
Appellant: Christina Ventura
Defendant: Zuel Ahmed
Respondent: Zuel Ahmed
Attorney: Michael Sanders (Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff, PLLC)
Attorney: Marjorie E. Bornes
Judge: Fernando Tapia
Judge: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P.
Judge: Kennedy
Judge: González
Judge: Pitt-Burke
Judge: Rosado

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-23
Trial court order entered: 2025-04-09

What You Should Do Next

1
Move to vacate the default in trial court
File a motion in Bronx Supreme Court asking to vacate the default and to have the opposition papers considered, providing a reasonable excuse for the delay and any supporting affidavits or proof of service.
2
Prepare to appeal denial of vacatur if necessary
If the trial court denies the vacatur motion, preserve and timely file an appeal from that denial and develop arguments showing excusable default and the merits of the underlying opposition.
3
Consult counsel about merits
Work with your attorney to strengthen the factual and medical proof regarding serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d) in case the default is vacated and the summary judgment motion is revisited.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the trial court's order was entered against the plaintiff for failing to timely respond, and such an order entered on default is not appealable as of right.
Who is affected by this decision?: Plaintiff Christina Ventura is affected because her appeal was dismissed; the defendant's summary judgment victory stands unless the plaintiff successfully vacates the default in the trial court.
What happens next?: Ventura's proper next step is to move in the trial court to vacate the default and seek to have her opposition papers considered; if that motion is denied, she may then appeal that denial.
Did the appellate court decide whether Ventura suffered a serious injury?: No. The court declined to address the merits of the serious-injury issue because it dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds related to the default.
Can this decision be appealed further?: This dismissal is of the appeal to the Appellate Division; if Ventura's motion to vacate is denied at trial court and she appeals that denial, further appellate review could follow depending on the outcome.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Ventura v Ahmed - 2026 NY Slip Op 02478

Ventura v Ahmed

2026 NY Slip Op 02478

April 23, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

Christina Ventura, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Zuel Ahmed, Defendant-Respondent.

Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026

Index No. 26488/17|Appeal No. 6465|Case No. 2025-03073|

Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kennedy, González, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, JJ.

Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff, PLLC, New York (Michael Sanders of counsel), for appellant.

Marjorie E. Bornes, Freeport, for respondent.

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered on or about April 9, 2025, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d), unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

No appeal lies as of right from an order entered on a party's default (
see
CPLR 5511). Although plaintiff purported to file papers opposing defendant's motion, the order granting summary judgment to defendant rejected those papers as untimely and indicated that it granted defendant's motion because of plaintiff's default in responding (
see Estrella v 20 Bruckner, LLC
, — AD3d —, —, 2026 NY Slip Op 01453, *1 [1st Dept 2026]). Accordingly, plaintiff's proper remedy was to move to vacate her default and appeal the denial of that motion (
see e.g. Matter of Diamonds R-Us Ltd. v Rafaello & Co. Inc.
, 238 AD3d 664, 664-665 [1st Dept 2025];
Manrique v Delgado
, 195 AD3d 554 [1st Dept 2021]).

In light of the foregoing, we decline to consider plaintiff's remaining arguments concerning the merits of the motion.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 23, 2026