From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Russo v. Rochford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 16, 1982
89 A.D.2d 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Opinion

August 16, 1982


In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated February 22, 1982, which denied their motion to vacate a prior order of the same court, dated November 2, 1981, which had granted a motion by the plaintiffs to strike defendants' answer and set the matter down for an assessment of damages, by reason of defendants' failure to comply with court orders in discovery proceedings. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The excuses proffered by defendants for their failure to comply with the court ordered discovery proceedings all fall within the ambit of law office failure and such excuses, as a matter of law, may not serve as a basis for excusing defaults ( Barasch v. Micucci, 49 N.Y.2d 594; cf. Eaton v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 56 N.Y.2d 900; Swidler v. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., 85 A.D.2d 239). Accordingly, we affirm the order appealed from. Mollen, P.J., Niehoff, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Russo v. Rochford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 16, 1982
89 A.D.2d 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)
Case details for

Russo v. Rochford

Case Details

Full title:LISA RUSSO, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, ANNA RUSSO, et…

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

Date published: Aug 16, 1982

Citations

89 A.D.2d 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)

Citing Cases

Goussous v. Modern Market

In Miskiewicz v Hartley Rest. Corp. ( 58 N.Y.2d 963), the court held that Barasch should not be applied to a…