Anron Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. AMCC Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anron Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. AMCC Corp.

133 A.D.3d 542, 19 N.Y.S.3d 414

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

DecidedNovember 24, 2015

Docket302331/11 16219N 16218

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 A.D.3d 542 (Anron Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. AMCC Corp.) 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

Anron Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. AMCC Corp., 133 A.D.3d 542, 19 N.Y.S.3d 414 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laura G. Douglas, J.), entered February 3, 2015, which granted defendants AMCC Corp., Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Charles Marino’s (together, AMCC), motion for renewal and, upon *543 renewal, adhered to its prior order, entered November 26, 2013, striking the reply to cross claims of AMCC and granting a default judgment against AMCC in favor of defendant Franco Belli Plumbing and Heating and Sons, Inc. (Franco Belli), unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the prior order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The IAS Court’s entry of default judgment against AMCC and the striking of its responsive pleading was not a clear abuse of discretion (Fish & Richardson, P.C. v Schindler, 75 AD3d 219, 220 [1st Dept 2010]). It is uncontested that AMCC violated three discovery orders over the course of more than a year, one of which was conditional and explicitly warned that failure to comply could lead to sanctions, including having its pleadings stricken. This Court has affirmed striking a party’s pleading on the basis that the party’s noncompliance was “willful, contumacious or due to bad faith” in similar situations (Loeb v Assara N.Y. I L.P., 118 AD3d 457, 457 [1st Dept 2014]). We agree with the IAS Court that AMCC has not provided a sufficient basis to support its purported excuse of its lawyer’s mental illness as a justification for noncompliance (compare 219 E. 7th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v 324 E. 8th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 40 AD3d 293, 294-295 [1st Dept 2007]).

We have considered AMCC’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2015 NY Slip Op 30215OJ).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laura G. Douglas, J.), entered February 3, 2015, which granted defendants AMCC Corp., Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Charles Marino’s (together, AMCC), motion for renewal and, upon *543 renewal, adhered to its prior order, entered November 26, 2013, striking the reply to cross claims of AMCC and granting a default judgment against AMCC in favor of defendant Franco Belli Plumbing and Heating and Sons, Inc. (Franco Belli), unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the prior order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The IAS Court’s entry of default judgment against AMCC and the striking of its responsive pleading was not a clear abuse of discretion (Fish & Richardson, P.C. v Schindler, 75 AD3d 219, 220 [1st Dept 2010]). It is uncontested that AMCC violated three discovery orders over the course of more than a year, one of which was conditional and explicitly warned that failure to comply could lead to sanctions, including having its pleadings stricken. This Court has affirmed striking a party’s pleading on the basis that the party’s noncompliance was “willful, contumacious or due to bad faith” in similar situations (Loeb v Assara N.Y. I L.P., 118 AD3d 457, 457 [1st Dept 2014]). We agree with the IAS Court that AMCC has not provided a sufficient basis to support its purported excuse of its lawyer’s mental illness as a justification for noncompliance (compare 219 E. 7th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v 324 E. 8th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 40 AD3d 293, 294-295 [1st Dept 2007]).

We have considered AMCC’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2015 NY Slip Op 30215OJ).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.3d 542, 19 N.Y.S.3d 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anron-heating-air-conditioning-inc-v-amcc-corp-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack