From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hesselbarth v. Paredes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 22, 1985
110 A.D.2d 818 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

April 22, 1985

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


Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, on condition that (1) respondents' counsel serves a bill of particulars upon appellant's counsel and (2) respondents' counsel personally pays appellant's counsel $750, both within 30 days after service upon respondents' counsel of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. In the event either of these conditions is not complied with, then order reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, appellant's motion to dismiss granted, and Actions Nos. 3 and 4 dismissed as to respondents.

Appellant's motion to dismiss was based on respondents' failure to comply with a conditional order of preclusion dated December 1, 1981. In opposition to the motion, respondents' counsel argued that he had never received the conditional order of preclusion. Specifically, respondents' counsel alleged that (1) his office address contained a post office box number as required by the postal authorities, (2) the appellant's affidavit of service by mail of the conditional order of preclusion failed to list the post office box number, and (3) this omission, which had caused problems with other mailings, may have caused the mailed conditional order of preclusion to be lost or misplaced.

Since it appears that the appellant's affidavit of service by mail of the conditional order of preclusion was not as complete as required by the postal authorities, we consider it inappropriate to unconditionally grant appellant's motion to dismiss ( Anthony v. Schofield, 265 App. Div. 423; cf. Engel v Lichterman, 95 A.D.2d 536, affd 62 N.Y.2d 943). Accordingly, we have granted respondents' counsel one more opportunity to comply with the conditional order of preclusion. Nevertheless, it appears that respondents' counsel has been guilty of delay in this case in complying with the demand for a bill of particulars. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to impose a monetary penalty upon respondents' counsel, to be personally paid to appellant's counsel. Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hesselbarth v. Paredes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 22, 1985
110 A.D.2d 818 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Hesselbarth v. Paredes

Case Details

Full title:RONALD HESSELBARTH et al., Plaintiffs, v. BERNABE PAREDES et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 22, 1985

Citations

110 A.D.2d 818 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Nyctl 1998-2 Tr. v. Quadrozzi Rlty. Corp.

The affidavit of service merely indicates service of such notice of cross motion and supporting papers by…

Flushing Natl. Bank v. Rich-Haven Motor Sales

It is well established that a properly executed affidavit of service raises a presumption that proper mailing…