From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ciancimino v. Roth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 17, 2001
286 A.D.2d 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted September 5, 2001.

September 17, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated August 21, 2000, which granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failure to comply with a conditional order of dismissal of the same court dated April 10, 2000.

Grosso Rosenberg, LLP, Central Islip, N.Y. (Joseph L. Grosso of counsel), for appellant.

Geisler Gabrielle, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Lori A. Marano of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

As a consequence of the plaintiff's failure to comply with a conditional order of dismissal, that order became absolute. To be relieved from the adverse impact of the order of dismissal, the plaintiff had to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to timely comply with the discovery demands, and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see, Liotti v. Ruk, 282 A.D.2d 717; Kepple v. Hill Assocs., 275 A.D.2d 299). The plaintiff did not meet this burden. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126.


Summaries of

Ciancimino v. Roth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 17, 2001
286 A.D.2d 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Ciancimino v. Roth

Case Details

Full title:JACK CIANCIMINO, APPELLANT, v. ROBERT ROTH, ETC., RESPONDENT

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

Date published: Sep 17, 2001

Citations

286 A.D.2d 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
730 N.Y.S.2d 255

Citing Cases

KWONG YUK LAM v. JOHNSON

Moreover, plaintiff has not established a meritorious claim. Consequently, the order precluding plaintiff…

Kennedy v. Class

That motion was decided by an order dated October 23, 2000, which conditionally struck Class's answer unless…