Alcindor v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alcindor v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

140 A.D.2d 573, 528 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5632

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 23, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.2d 573 (Alcindor v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alcindor v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 140 A.D.2d 573, 528 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Upon consideration of the factors previously outlined by this court in Stolpiec v Wiener (100 AD2d 931), we conclude that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing to vacate the default entered against the defendants (see also, La Buda v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Med. Center, 98 [574]*574AD2d 711, affd 62 NY2d 1014). We note that the plaintiff has clearly established that the defendants’ repeated refusal to comply with her discovery demands and court orders directing disclosure was willful and contumacious, thereby justifying the court’s order striking their answer (see, CPLR 3126; Chase Manhattan Bank v Abad, 131 AD2d 312; Perritt v Smithtown Gen. Hosp., 122 AD2d 256, lv dismissed 68 NY2d 997; Henderson v Stilwell, 116 AD2d 861). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Upon consideration of the factors previously outlined by this court in Stolpiec v Wiener (100 AD2d 931), we conclude that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing to vacate the default entered against the defendants (see also, La Buda v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Med. Center, 98 [574]*574AD2d 711, affd 62 NY2d 1014). We note that the plaintiff has clearly established that the defendants’ repeated refusal to comply with her discovery demands and court orders directing disclosure was willful and contumacious, thereby justifying the court’s order striking their answer (see, CPLR 3126; Chase Manhattan Bank v Abad, 131 AD2d 312; Perritt v Smithtown Gen. Hosp., 122 AD2d 256, lv dismissed 68 NY2d 997; Henderson v Stilwell, 116 AD2d 861). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 573, 528 N.Y.S.2d 1002, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alcindor-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-corp-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack