From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garcia v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 3, 2011
81 A.D.3d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 4191N.

February 3, 2011.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered December 24, 2009, which granted plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the answers of defendants City of New York, 1515 Bruckner Blvd. LLC, Citywide Contractors LLC and Kaila Construction Corporation unless they appear for their respective examinations before trial within 60 days of service of a copy of the order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Michael A. Cervini, P.C., Jackson Heights (Robin Mary Heaney of counsel), for appellant.

Jeffrey M. Schwartz, New Rochelle, for respondent.

Before: Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Acosta and Richter, JJ.


Defendants failed to comply with a preliminary conference order and two compliance conference orders issued over a period of 14 months to produce witnesses for examinations before trial. However, given counsel's failure to file an affirmation in compliance with 22 NYCRR 202.7 (a) (2), it was a provident exercise of discretion to provide defendants with a final opportunity to produce witnesses for examinations before trial ( see Reidel v Ryder TRS, Inc., 13 AD3d 170).


Summaries of

Garcia v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 3, 2011
81 A.D.3d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Garcia v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:FRANCISCO GARCIA, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants, and…

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

Date published: Feb 3, 2011

Citations

81 A.D.3d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 629
916 N.Y.S.2d 770

Citing Cases

Cepeda v. Payano

Given the nature and extent of the defendants" disobedience, a penalty was appropriate. Given the…