Amerasian International Enterprises, Ltd. v. Health Care Concepts, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amerasian International Enterprises, Ltd. v. Health Care Concepts, Inc.

302 A.D.2d 244, 754 N.Y.S.2d 533, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1288

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 302 A.D.2d 244 (Amerasian International Enterprises, Ltd. v. Health Care Concepts, Inc.) 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

Amerasian International Enterprises, Ltd. v. Health Care Concepts, Inc., 302 A.D.2d 244, 754 N.Y.S.2d 533, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1288 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered September 7, 2001, which, at a preliminary conference, struck defendants’ answer, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The subject order is not appealable as of right (see Postel v New York Univ. Hosp., 262 AD2d 40, 41). While a subsequent motion to vacate or renew would have properly placed the issue defendants now seek to raise before this Court (see Torres v New York City Hous. Auth., 298 AD2d 207; Daniels v City of New York, 291 AD2d 260; Boyle v City of New York, 269 AD2d 135; Postel, supra), the record is devoid of any such motion.

Were we to reach the merits, we would find that defendants, while submitting a meritorious defense in the form of their verified answer (see Ellis v Jackson, 267 AD2d 20), failed to set forth the necessary reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the court’s repeated directions to provide discovery (see Color Wheel v Interstate Printing, 281 AD2d 161). The assertion by counsel was insufficient for this purpose. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ. '

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered September 7, 2001, which, at a preliminary conference, struck defendants’ answer, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The subject order is not appealable as of right (see Postel v New York Univ. Hosp., 262 AD2d 40, 41). While a subsequent motion to vacate or renew would have properly placed the issue defendants now seek to raise before this Court (see Torres v New York City Hous. Auth., 298 AD2d 207; Daniels v City of New York, 291 AD2d 260; Boyle v City of New York, 269 AD2d 135; Postel, supra), the record is devoid of any such motion.

Were we to reach the merits, we would find that defendants, while submitting a meritorious defense in the form of their verified answer (see Ellis v Jackson, 267 AD2d 20), failed to set forth the necessary reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the court’s repeated directions to provide discovery (see Color Wheel v Interstate Printing, 281 AD2d 161). The assertion by counsel was insufficient for this purpose. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ. '

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 244, 754 N.Y.S.2d 533, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amerasian-international-enterprises-ltd-v-health-care-concepts-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack