From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 28, 1997
238 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

April 28, 1997


In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), entered October 25, 1995, upon the third-party defendant's default in complying with a prior order of the same court dated March 9, 1995, granting the third-party plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment unless the third-party defendant responded to certain discovery, which is in favor of the defendant and third-party plaintiff and against it.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court entered a judgment in favor of the third-party plaintiff and against the appellant after the appellant failed to comply with a prior order granting the third-party plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its third-party complaint unless the appellant provided certain discovery. Since the judgment is deemed to have been entered on the appellant's default, the appellant's proper remedy was to move to vacate the judgment rather than a direct appeal ( see, CPLR 5511; Murphy v. Murphy, 212 A.D.2d 583; see, e.g., Fleet Fin. v. Nielsen, 234 A.D.2d 728; Rust v. Sifer, 115 Misc.2d 363). Miller, J.P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Smith v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 28, 1997
238 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Smith v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:PATRICK SMITH et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants…

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

Date published: Apr 28, 1997

Citations

238 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
656 N.Y.S.2d 378

Citing Cases

Williams v. Sahay

The plaintiff did not oppose the motion being unaware of its existence on the return date. Had the Supreme…

Settembrini v. Settembrini

s because the defendant did not appear at the inquest, his new counsel was not ready to proceed, a preclusion…