Amico v. Pepe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amico v. Pepe

172 A.D.2d 575, 570 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4603

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

DecidedApril 8, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 575 (Amico v. Pepe) 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

Amico v. Pepe, 172 A.D.2d 575, 570 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated July 19, 1989, which denied his motion to strike the defendants’ answer and to set the matter down for an assessment of damages.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted; and it is further,

[576]*576Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for an assessment of damages.

The disappearance or intentional unavailability of the defendants is not a reason, in and of itself, to deny a motion to strike the answer where there have been repeated defaults in appearances for examinations before trial (see, Reitte v Entermy Cab Corp., 162 AD2d 259; Moriates v Powertest Petroleum Co., 114 AD2d 888, 889; Foti v Suero, 97 AD2d 748). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated July 19, 1989, which denied his motion to strike the defendants’ answer and to set the matter down for an assessment of damages.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted; and it is further,

[576]*576Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for an assessment of damages.

The disappearance or intentional unavailability of the defendants is not a reason, in and of itself, to deny a motion to strike the answer where there have been repeated defaults in appearances for examinations before trial (see, Reitte v Entermy Cab Corp., 162 AD2d 259; Moriates v Powertest Petroleum Co., 114 AD2d 888, 889; Foti v Suero, 97 AD2d 748). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 575, 570 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amico-v-pepe-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack