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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 13, 2003·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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. '

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

302 A.D.2d 244 (Amerasian International Enterprises, Ltd. v. Health Care Concepts, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related