From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garcia v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 29, 2004
5 A.D.3d 725 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-03159.

Decided March 29, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated March 10, 2003, which denied her motion, in effect, to enforce a self-executing order of the same court dated October 13, 2000, striking the defendant's answer upon noncompliance with discovery.

Bader, Yakaitis Nonnenmacher, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Darlene S. Miloski of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and John Hogrogian of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The plaintiff alleged that she sustained personal injuries when she tripped and fell on a defective sidewalk owned and maintained by the defendant City of New York. By order dated October 13, 2000, the Supreme Court directed the City to comply with an order dated July 9, 1999, directing it to provide the name and address of the entity that installed the subject sidewalk. The order dated October 13, 2000, further provided that the answer would be stricken in the event that it did not, within 45 days, comply therewith. In the only response which the City provided — shortly before the expiration of the 45-day period — the City stated as follows: "Sidewalk Installer's Name Unknown at this time. When it becomes known to the City same will be exchanged with plaintiff." The defendant did not at any point thereafter disclose the requested information.

The defendant's "response" did not evince a good-faith effort to address the request meaningfully and thus did not constitute compliance with the order ( see Kihl v. Pfeffer, 94 N.Y.2d 118, 123). Therefore, the order dated October 13, 2000, became unconditional, the answer was stricken, and the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff's motion.

ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Garcia v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 29, 2004
5 A.D.3d 725 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Garcia v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:PATRICIA GARCIA, appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, respondent

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

Date published: Mar 29, 2004

Citations

5 A.D.3d 725 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
774 N.Y.S.2d 173

Citing Cases

Arpino v. F.J.F. & Sons Elec. Co.

As the Court of Appeals has noted, the failure of attorneys to comply with court-ordered deadlines has…

Willis v. Public Stor.

By order entered June 19, 2009, the Civil Court conditionally granted the motion. Since plaintiff failed to…