Blake v. Mamadou

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blake v. Mamadou

281 A.D.2d 301, 722 N.Y.S.2d 158, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3042

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

DecidedMarch 22, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 301 (Blake v. Mamadou) 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

Blake v. Mamadou, 281 A.D.2d 301, 722 N.Y.S.2d 158, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3042 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about May 10, 2000, which, inter alia, struck the answer of defendant Barry Mamadou, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to vacate the striking of the answer, and in lieu thereof to direct that defendant Mamadou is precluded from testifying at trial unless he appears for an examination before trial, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The record provides indication that defendant Mamadou’s failure to appear for deposition was not willful, but resulted from his attorney’s inability to locate him at his last known address. Although a client has an obligation to remain in communication with his attorney, defendant’s failure to communicate is not by itself a sufficient ground upon which to strike his answer (see, Heyward v Benyarko, 82 AD2d 751). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about May 10, 2000, which, inter alia, struck the answer of defendant Barry Mamadou, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to vacate the striking of the answer, and in lieu thereof to direct that defendant Mamadou is precluded from testifying at trial unless he appears for an examination before trial, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The record provides indication that defendant Mamadou’s failure to appear for deposition was not willful, but resulted from his attorney’s inability to locate him at his last known address. Although a client has an obligation to remain in communication with his attorney, defendant’s failure to communicate is not by itself a sufficient ground upon which to strike his answer (see, Heyward v Benyarko, 82 AD2d 751). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 301, 722 N.Y.S.2d 158, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blake-v-mamadou-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack