Cenzano v. Cenzano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cenzano v. Cenzano

250 A.D.2d 568, 672 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4909

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

DecidedMay 4, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 568 (Cenzano v. Cenzano) 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

Cenzano v. Cenzano, 250 A.D.2d 568, 672 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), entered May 6, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Once a conditional order of dismissal becomes effective by its terms (see, Bock v Schiowitz, 168 AD2d 593), a plaintiff can only open up the default by establishing a reasonable excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action (see, Zirin v Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr., 216 AD2d 461; Johnson v Heavy Realty Corp., 191 AD2d 538). The plaintiffs have failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for their history of resisting disclosure demands and for twice disobeying the court’s disclosure orders. Thus, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint (see, Rodriguez v Colasuonno, 238 AD2d 329). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), entered May 6, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Once a conditional order of dismissal becomes effective by its terms (see, Bock v Schiowitz, 168 AD2d 593), a plaintiff can only open up the default by establishing a reasonable excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action (see, Zirin v Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr., 216 AD2d 461; Johnson v Heavy Realty Corp., 191 AD2d 538). The plaintiffs have failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for their history of resisting disclosure demands and for twice disobeying the court’s disclosure orders. Thus, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint (see, Rodriguez v Colasuonno, 238 AD2d 329). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 568, 672 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cenzano-v-cenzano-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack