From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McIntosh v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 7, 2000
275 A.D.2d 307 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

August 7, 2000.


In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated September 9, 1999, which denied their motion to compel the defendants City of New York and New York City Board of Education to comply with a notice to produce dated February 26, 1999.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion is granted, and the respondents are directed to comply with the notice to produce within 30 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry; in the event that the respondents fail to comply with the decision and order of this Court, the Supreme Court, Kings County, shall enter an order deeming it resolved that the respondents failed to provide a school crossing guard at the intersection in question at the time of the alleged accident.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion. While the respondents claimed that the requested records could not be located, they did not submit an affidavit from the individual who purportedly searched for the records. Further, the respondents' lack of diligence and delay in complying with the plaintiffs' discovery demands have prejudiced the plaintiffs. Thus, the imposition of a conditional sanction is appropriate ( see, Donovan v. City of New York, 239 A.D.2d 461; CPLR 3126; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3124:6, at 741).

O'Brien, J.P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

McIntosh v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 7, 2000
275 A.D.2d 307 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

McIntosh v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:KIRT McINTOSH, AN INFANT, BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, ROSEMARIE…

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

Date published: Aug 7, 2000

Citations

275 A.D.2d 307 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
712 N.Y.S.2d 53

Citing Cases

Teshabaeva v. Family Home Care Servs. of Brooklyn & Queens, Inc.

However, by moving only to compel pursuant to CPLR 3124, this Court is limited as to the relief it may grant,…

Brooks v. City of New York

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to CPLR…