From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stewart v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 30, 1999
266 A.D.2d 452 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted September 29, 1999

November 30, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), entered February 11, 1999, as granted the motion of the defendant 21st Avenue Transportation Co., Inc., to vacate so much of a prior order of the same court, dated July 20, 1998, as struck its answer for failing to produce an employee for an examination before trial.

Huttner, Mingino Budashewitz, P.C. (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac DeCicco, New York, N.Y. [Lee Michael Huttner, Julie T. Mark, and Brian J. Isaac] of counsel), for appellants.

Molod, Spitz, DeSantis Stark, New York, N.Y. (Alice Spitz and Marcy Sonneborn of counsel), for respondent.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is denied, and so much of the order dated July 20, 1998, as struck the answer of the defendant 21st Avenue Transportation Co., Inc., is reinstated.

As a result of the failure of the defendant 21st Avenue Transportation Co., Inc. (hereinafter 21st Avenue), to produce a witness for a deposition within 30 days of the entry of a conditional order striking its answer, the conditional order became absolute ( see, Clissuras v. Concord Vil. Owners, Inc., 233 A.D.2d 475; Stojowski v. Fair Oaks Dev. Corp., 151 A.D.2d 661). In order to avoid the adverse impact of the order, therefore, 21st Avenue was required to demonstrate an excusable default and the existence of a meritorious claim ( see, Felicciardi v. Town of Brookhaven, 205 A.D.2d 495). While a court may, in its discretion, accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse ( see, CPLR 2005; Putney v. Pearlman, 203 A.D.2d 333), a pattern of willful default and neglect should not be excused ( see, Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, 238 A.D.2d 568, 569; see also, Wynne v. Wagner, ___; 262 A.D.2d 556 [2d Dept., June 21, 1999]; Rock v. Schwartz, 244 A.D.2d 542).

Here, after 21st Avenue had failed several times to produce a witness for deposition, the court issued a conditional order striking its answer unless the witness was produced within 30 days of the entry of the order. 21st Avenue failed to produce the witness within the allotted 30 days and then attempted to produce the witness after the order became absolute. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it granted the motion to vacate.

O'BRIEN, J.P., SULLIVAN, GOLDSTEIN, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Stewart v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 30, 1999
266 A.D.2d 452 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Stewart v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT STEWART, etc., et al., appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.…

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

Date published: Nov 30, 1999

Citations

266 A.D.2d 452 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
698 N.Y.S.2d 874

Citing Cases

Pugliese v. Mondello

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting a conditional order striking the answer…

Zouev v. N.Y

The plaintiff contends that the Supreme Court should have granted his motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) to…