From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Finnegan v. Ulrich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 19, 2001
288 A.D.2d 342 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued September 6, 2001.

November 19, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), entered September 26, 2000, as, upon an order of the same court dated May 9, 2000, granting the motion of the defendant Towne Bus Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and denying that branch of her cross motion which was to strike the answer of Towne Bus Corp. upon its alleged failure to timely comply with a preliminary conference order, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

Murray Hopkins, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Mark A. Murray of counsel), for appellant.

Friedberg Raven, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Nancy Loven of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, HOWARD MILLER, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, so much of the order dated May 9, 2000, as granted the motion of the defendant Towne Bus Corp., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it is vacated, and that motion is denied, with leave to renew after further discovery.

In view of the failure of Towne Bus Corp. (hereinafter Towne) to comply with discovery requests, the granting of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it was premature (see, Brophy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 278 A.D.2d 351; Esposito v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 264 A.D.2d 370; Colicchio v. Port Auth. of N Y N.J., 246 A.D.2d 464).

The Supreme Court, however, properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was to strike Towne's answer upon its alleged failure to timely comply with a preliminary conference order.

GOLDSTEIN, J.P., McGINITY, H. MILLER and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Finnegan v. Ulrich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 19, 2001
288 A.D.2d 342 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Finnegan v. Ulrich

Case Details

Full title:DOROTHY FINNEGAN, appellant, v. RUSSELL ULRICH, defendant, TOWNE BUS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 19, 2001

Citations

288 A.D.2d 342 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
733 N.Y.S.2d 873

Citing Cases

Steele v. 400 East 77th Street Corp.

Plaintiffs also claim that the motion should be denied, as premature, because depositions have not yet been…

Miranda v. New York City Housing Authority

This language implies that the Supreme Court recognized that substantial disclosure remained outstanding in…