Boera v. Batz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boera v. Batz

236 A.D.2d 349, 654 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1040

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 349 (Boera v. Batz) 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

Boera v. Batz, 236 A.D.2d 349, 654 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1040 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants John Batz, Robert Batz, and Jacqueline Batz appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered January 31, 1996, which conditionally granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike [350]*350their answer for failure to appear at an examination before trial unless they appeared at an examination before trial on a date certain.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The fact that the appellants "ha[ve] disappeared or made [themselves] unavailable provides no basis for denying a motion to strike [their] answer” (Foti v Suero, 97 AD2d 748; Rowe v Lee Gee Sook, 224 AD2d 404; Spataro v Ervin, 186 AD2d 793; Mills v Ducille, 170 AD2d 657; Moriates v Powertest Petroleum Co., 114 AD2d 888). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Joy, Florio and McGinity, 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 defendants John Batz, Robert Batz, and Jacqueline Batz appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered January 31, 1996, which conditionally granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike [350]*350their answer for failure to appear at an examination before trial unless they appeared at an examination before trial on a date certain.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The fact that the appellants "ha[ve] disappeared or made [themselves] unavailable provides no basis for denying a motion to strike [their] answer” (Foti v Suero, 97 AD2d 748; Rowe v Lee Gee Sook, 224 AD2d 404; Spataro v Ervin, 186 AD2d 793; Mills v Ducille, 170 AD2d 657; Moriates v Powertest Petroleum Co., 114 AD2d 888). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Joy, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 349, 654 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boera-v-batz-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack