From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baez v. Wurm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 16, 1997
240 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

June 16, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiff's motion, in effect, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants on the issue of liability is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an inquest on damages.

The plaintiff's motion, characterized as one for "partial summary judgment", was predicated on a prior order striking the defendants' answers for their failure to comply with discovery demands. The plaintiff should have characterized the motion as one for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants on the issue of liability pursuant to CPLR 3215. In the interests of expediency and judicial economy, and in light of the fact that the defendants' answers were stricken because of their deliberate and contumacious failure to comply with discovery, the plaintiff's motion should have been granted (see, CPLR 2001; County of Nassau v. Cedric Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 890, 891).

Miller, J.P., Thompson, JOY and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Baez v. Wurm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 16, 1997
240 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Baez v. Wurm

Case Details

Full title:ANTONIO BAEZ, JR., Appellant, v. RONALD G. WURM, JR., et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jun 16, 1997

Citations

240 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
658 N.Y.S.2d 681

Citing Cases

Francesco v. Empress Ambulance Serv., Inc.

The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion, and the plaintiff appeals. The Supreme Court should have…

BAEZ v. WURM

Decided March 26, 1998 Appeal from (2d Dept: 240 A.D.2d 526) Motion for leave to appeal…