Alomar v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alomar v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

244 A.D.2d 181, 664 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11398

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 13, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about January 30, 1997, which granted defendant-respondent's motion for preclusion and dismissal, and, order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 29, 1997, which granted plaintiffs motion to reargue and renew, and upon reargument, adhered to its prior decision, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly granted unconditional preclusion and dismissal where plaintiff failed to offer an adequate excuse for his [182] seven-year delay in providing a bill of particulars, and failed to demonstrate the merits of his claim as against defendant-respondent (see, Canter v Mulnick, 93 AD2d 751, affd 60 NY2d 689). The remedy provided by the court was appropriate under the circumstances (see, CPLR 3042 [former (c)]). We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about January 30, 1997, which granted defendant-respondent's motion for preclusion and dismissal, and, order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 29, 1997, which granted plaintiffs motion to reargue and renew, and upon reargument, adhered to its prior decision, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly granted unconditional preclusion and dismissal where plaintiff failed to offer an adequate excuse for his [182] seven-year delay in providing a bill of particulars, and failed to demonstrate the merits of his claim as against defendant-respondent (see, Canter v Mulnick, 93 AD2d 751, affd 60 NY2d 689). The remedy provided by the court was appropriate under the circumstances (see, CPLR 3042 [former (c)]). We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Alomar v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, 244 A.D.2d 181, 664 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

244 A.D.2d 181 (Alomar v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related