Bono v. Nanco Contracting Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bono v. Nanco Contracting Corp.

172 A.D.2d 474

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

DecidedApril 1, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 172 A.D.2d 474 (Bono v. Nanco Contracting 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

Bono v. Nanco Contracting Corp., 172 A.D.2d 474 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Sheila Nevins, Edward B. Sadin and Harry Ladner appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), dated October 27, 1989, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike their answer pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

On this record, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in imposing the drastic sanction of striking the answers of the individual defendants upon their repeated, willful failure to comply with numerous orders directing them to appear for depositions (see, CPLR 3126; Rubin v Pan Am. World Airways, 128 AD2d 765). Brown, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Miller, 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, etc., the defendants Sheila Nevins, Edward B. Sadin and Harry Ladner appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), dated October 27, 1989, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike their answer pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

On this record, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in imposing the drastic sanction of striking the answers of the individual defendants upon their repeated, willful failure to comply with numerous orders directing them to appear for depositions (see, CPLR 3126; Rubin v Pan Am. World Airways, 128 AD2d 765). Brown, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bono-v-nanco-contracting-corp-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack