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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 8, 1991·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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.

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

172 A.D.2d 575 (Amico v. Pepe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related