From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Juers v. Barry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 25, 1985
114 A.D.2d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

November 25, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Donovan, J.).


Order affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff's delay in serving a bill of particulars pursuant to a conditional order of preclusion was attributable to plaintiff's substitution of attorneys, the fact that plaintiff's former attorney failed to forward a copy of the order of preclusion to plaintiff's new attorneys, and the fact that defendants' attorneys failed to inform plaintiff's substituted attorneys of the entry of the conditional order of preclusion until after the bill of particulars was served, even though plaintiff's substituted attorneys were in contact with defendants' attorneys. Moreover, the length of the delay in serving the bill of particulars was minimal, plaintiff's injuries were serious, and defendants suffered no prejudice as a result. Under these circumstances, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in vacating the conditional order of preclusion (see, e.g., Goussous v Modern Food Mkt., 93 A.D.2d 417; Batista v St. Luke's Hosp., 46 A.D.2d 806; Morris Oil Servs. v Bergman, 37 A.D.2d 862; CPLR 2005, 3012 [d]; 5015 [a]).

Plaintiff's motion need not have been made before the same Judge who signed the conditional order of preclusion, because that order was entered upon the default of plaintiff's prior attorney (CPLR 2221; see, Claudio v Lefrak, 100 A.D.2d 837, appeal dismissed 64 N.Y.2d 756; Conklin v Conklin, 90 A.D.2d 817). Plaintiff's motion to vacate the conditional preclusion order was timely because it was made within one year of service of a copy of the order, with notice of entry (CPLR 5015 [a]). Finally since plaintiff's substituted attorneys and defendants' attorneys had oral and written communications prior to the service of a formal consent to change attorneys, the actions of the substituted attorneys prior to the service of the consent to change attorneys should not be nullified (see, Dobbins v County of Erie, 58 A.D.2d 733; cf. Deacon's Bench v Hoffman, 88 A.D.2d 734). Lazer, J.P., Gibbons, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Juers v. Barry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 25, 1985
114 A.D.2d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Juers v. Barry

Case Details

Full title:WARREN JUERS, Respondent, v. GERARD BARRY et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Nov 25, 1985

Citations

114 A.D.2d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Yuan Zhai v. Chemical Bank

(Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2221:4, at 181.) Although the…

Siderakis v. Choudhary

Generally, interim orders issued on default and which do not involve a determination, fall within this…