From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 15, 1997
242 A.D.2d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

September 15, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.).


Ordered that the amended order dated October 31, 1995, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the order dated April 13, 1995, is vacated, and the motion of the plaintiffs in Action No. 2 to strike the answer of the defendant Kerala Transportation Corp. is denied on condition that the defendant Vladimir Fridman appear for an examination before trial to be held within 60 days after service upon the defendant Kerala Transportation Corp. of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry, at a time and place to be specified in a written notice of not less than 10 days to be given by the plaintiffs, or at such time and place as the parties may agree, and the order dated February 2, 1996, is modified accordingly, and in the event the condition is not complied with, then the orders dated February 2, 1996, and October 31, 1995, are affirmed insofar as appealed from, and the order dated April 13, 1995, is reinstated; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated February 2, 1996, is modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provisions which directed an inquest against the defendant Kerala Transportation Corp.; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The law is well settled that resort to the drastic sanction of striking a defendant's answer will not be had unless the defendant's default is "`clearly shown to be deliberate and contumacious'" ( Tschernia v. Embanque Capital Corp., 161 A.D.2d 585, 587, quoting Read v. Dickson, 150 A.D.2d 543, 544; Wilson v Brunswick Hosp., 199 A.D.2d 496). In the case at bar, the defendant Kerala Transportation Corp. demonstrated in its papers that it made diligent efforts to secure the attendance of its driver, the defendant Vladimir Fridman, at an examination before trial. Accordingly, the failure of Kerala Transportation Corp. in this regard cannot be considered to be "deliberate and contumacious". Under the circumstances, particularly since defendant Fridman was located, the more appropriate remedy is to deny the plaintiffs' motion on condition that Fridman appear for an examination before trial within 60 days after service upon the defendant Kerala Transportation Corp. of the decision and order herein with notice of entry ( see, Gamble v. Anlynne, Inc., 199 A.D.2d 303), or at such other time as the parties may agree.

We have reviewed the defendants' remaining argument and find it to be without merit.

Altman, J.P., Friedmann, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Johnson v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 15, 1997
242 A.D.2d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Johnson v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:VIDA JOHNSON et al., Plaintiffs, v. HOPELIN BROWN, Defendant. (Action No…

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

Date published: Sep 15, 1997

Citations

242 A.D.2d 562 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
662 N.Y.S.2d 776

Citing Cases

Fox v. Eastman Kodak Company

No such showing was made here. Rather, the record establishes that much of the delay in responding to…