From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Torres v. DeCordova

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 7, 1999
262 A.D.2d 399 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted April 16, 1999

June 7, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Sgardo E. Saavedra and Luz Quintero appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated May 27, 1998, which granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to strike their answer unless they provided outstanding discovery and submitted to depositions within 90 days from the date of service of a copy of the order with notice of entry.

Martin, Fallon Mullé, Huntington, N.Y. (Richard C. Mullé of counsel), for appellants.

Jacoby Meyers, Melville, N.Y. (Linda T. Armatti-Epstein of counsel), for respondents.

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The fact that the appellants have disappeared or made themselves unavailable to appear at the depositions provides no basis for denying a motion to strike their answer ( see, Torres v. Martinez, 250 A.D.2d 759; Dash v. DK Tr., 239 A.D.2d 313).


Summaries of

Torres v. DeCordova

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 7, 1999
262 A.D.2d 399 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Torres v. DeCordova

Case Details

Full title:ENRIQUE TORRES, et al., respondents, v. HERBERT P. DeCORDOVA, et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 7, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 399 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
691 N.Y.S.2d 312

Citing Cases

Eustache v. Aunun Nahar

In opposition to that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the…