Baez v. Wurm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baez v. Wurm

240 A.D.2d 526, 658 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6608

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

DecidedJune 16, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 526 (Baez v. Wurm) 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

Baez v. Wurm, 240 A.D.2d 526, 658 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6608 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), dated April 5, 1996, which denied his motion, in effect, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiff’s motion, in effect, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants on the issue of liability is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an inquest on damages.

The plaintiff’s motion, characterized as one for "partial summary judgment”, was predicated on a prior order striking the defendants’ answers for their failure to comply with discovery demands. The plaintiff should have characterized the motion as one for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants on the issue of liability pursuant to CPLR 3215. In the interests of expediency and judicial economy, and in light of the fact that the defendants’ answers were stricken because of their deliberate and contumacious failure to comply with discovery, the plaintiff’s motion should have been granted (see, CPLR 2001; County of Nassau v Cedric Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 890, 891). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), dated April 5, 1996, which denied his motion, in effect, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiff’s motion, in effect, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants on the issue of liability is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an inquest on damages.

The plaintiff’s motion, characterized as one for "partial summary judgment”, was predicated on a prior order striking the defendants’ answers for their failure to comply with discovery demands. The plaintiff should have characterized the motion as one for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants on the issue of liability pursuant to CPLR 3215. In the interests of expediency and judicial economy, and in light of the fact that the defendants’ answers were stricken because of their deliberate and contumacious failure to comply with discovery, the plaintiff’s motion should have been granted (see, CPLR 2001; County of Nassau v Cedric Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 890, 891). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 526, 658 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baez-v-wurm-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack