Ciancimino v. Roth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ciancimino v. Roth

286 A.D.2d 696, 730 N.Y.S.2d 255, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8565

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

DecidedSeptember 17, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 696 (Ciancimino v. Roth) 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

Ciancimino v. Roth, 286 A.D.2d 696, 730 N.Y.S.2d 255, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8565 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal spondent.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

As a consequence of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with a conditional order of dismissal, that order became absolute. To be relieved from the adverse impact of the order of dismissal, the plaintiff had to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to timely comply with the discovery demands, and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see, Liotti v Ruk, 282 AD2d 717; Kepple v Hill Assocs., 275 AD2d 299). The plaintiff did not meet this burden. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the com[697]*697plaint pursuant to CPLR 3126. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, 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 spondent.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

As a consequence of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with a conditional order of dismissal, that order became absolute. To be relieved from the adverse impact of the order of dismissal, the plaintiff had to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to timely comply with the discovery demands, and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see, Liotti v Ruk, 282 AD2d 717; Kepple v Hill Assocs., 275 AD2d 299). The plaintiff did not meet this burden. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the com[697]*697plaint pursuant to CPLR 3126. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 696, 730 N.Y.S.2d 255, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ciancimino-v-roth-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack