Centerport Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Atlantic Fabricators of Rhode Island, Inc.

277 A.D.2d 414, 715 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12319
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 27, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 414 (Centerport Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Atlantic Fabricators of Rhode Island, Inc.) 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
Centerport Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Atlantic Fabricators of Rhode Island, Inc., 277 A.D.2d 414, 715 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, the plaintiff appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.), entered July 28, 1999, which, upon an order of the same court dated June 11, 1999, conditionally granting the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint, dismissed the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, dated October 6, 1999, which denied its motion, in effect, for renewal.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, as a matter of discretion, the order dated June 11, 1999, is vacated, the motion to [415]*415strike the complaint is denied, and the complaint is reinstated; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 6, 1999, is dismissed as academic in light of the determination on the appeal from the judgment.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in striking the complaint absent a clear showing that the plaintiffs failure to comply with discovery demands was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see, CPLR 3126; Vancott v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 271 AD2d 438; Harris v City of New York, 211 AD2d 663). The record does not support a finding that the plaintiff willfully and deliberately failed to comply with discovery requests. Rather, the plaintiff complied with the defendants’ discovery demands to the best of its ability.

The plaintiffs further contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying its motion, in effect, for renewal, is academic in light of our determination. Krausman, J. P., Florio, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital
44 A.D.3d 1014 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Tine v. Courtview Owners Corp.
40 A.D.3d 966 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Mawson v. Historic Properties, LLC
30 A.D.3d 480 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Lombardo v. St. Francis Hospital Rehabilitation Services
16 A.D.3d 385 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Diel v. Rosenfeld
12 A.D.3d 558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Felipe v. 2820 West 36th Street Realty Corp.
7 A.D.3d 483 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Avenue C Construction, Inc. v. Gassner
306 A.D.2d 506 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
277 A.D.2d 414, 715 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/centerport-insurance-agency-inc-v-atlantic-fabricators-of-rhode-island-nyappdiv-2000.