The New York Appellate Division has upheld a judgment in the case of Thomas v. Sow, awarding Carolyn Thomas a total of $65,857.94. This decision comes after a car accident in February 2019 involving Thomas and defendants Abou Sow and Lux Credit Consultants, LLC. The ruling is significant as it confirms the court's support for the settlement agreement and the awarding of additional costs and fees.
The case began when Carolyn Thomas filed a lawsuit against Abou Sow and Lux Credit Consultants, LLC, following a car accident. The incident led to personal injuries for Thomas, prompting her to seek compensation. In August 2023, both parties reached a settlement agreement of $60,000. However, the defendants did not respond to Thomas's subsequent motion to have the court enter a judgment that included interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.
After the settlement was reached, Thomas filed a motion in September 2023 under New York's CPLR 5003-a, which allows a party to seek a judgment for the settlement amount plus additional costs. The defendants failed to oppose this motion, leading to an amended order from the Supreme Court on February 26, 2024, which granted Thomas's unopposed request. The defendants later attempted to vacate this order, claiming a law office failure as the reason for their lack of response.
The Supreme Court of Kings County, led by Judge Robin K. Sheares, denied the defendants' motion to vacate the order on June 25, 2024. The court found that the defendants did not provide a reasonable excuse for their failure to respond to the original motion. As a result, the court entered a judgment in favor of Thomas, which included the original settlement amount, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.
The Appellate Division, consisting of Judges Betsy Barros, Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, Barry E. Warhit, and Elena Goldberg Velazquez, affirmed the lower court's judgment on August 5, 2026. The court emphasized that the defendants had not demonstrated a reasonable excuse for their default in opposing Thomas's motion. The ruling stated, "A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon his or her default in opposing a motion must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion."
Furthermore, the court noted that the defendants' claim of law office failure was not sufficient to justify their lack of response. The judges concluded that the Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants' motion to vacate the order.
This ruling has significant implications for similar personal injury cases in New York. It reinforces the importance of timely responses to court motions and highlights the consequences of failing to oppose a motion. The decision also confirms that courts will uphold settlements and associated costs when a party does not provide adequate justification for their inaction.
Moving forward, this case may serve as a precedent for future personal injury claims, particularly regarding the enforcement of settlement agreements and the awarding of additional costs and fees. It emphasizes the need for defendants to be proactive in legal proceedings to avoid unfavorable outcomes.
As for the defendants in this case, they have the option to appeal the ruling further. However, details on whether they plan to take this step were not available in the court filing. There is no indication of any related cases pending at this time.