Cobenas v. Ginsburg Development Companies, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cobenas v. Ginsburg Development Companies, LLC

74 A.D.3d 1269, 903 N.Y.S.2d 238

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

DecidedJune 29, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 74 A.D.3d 1269 (Cobenas v. Ginsburg Development Companies, LLC) 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

Cobenas v. Ginsburg Development Companies, LLC, 74 A.D.3d 1269, 903 N.Y.S.2d 238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant Mauricio Soares appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Lubell, J.), entered June 3, 2009, which granted the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff Leopard Framing Corp., and the separate motion of the defendants second third-party plaintiffs, Ginsburg Development Companies, LLC, Ginsburg Development Companies Corp., GDC Construction & Development Corp. and Fairways Wallkill, LLC, pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) to strike his respective answers to the third-party complaint and the second third-party complaint for failure to appear for a deposition, and directed the entry of default judgments against him.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions granting the respective motions of the defendant/ third-party plaintiff Leopard Framing Corp., and the defendants/second third-party plaintiffs Ginsburg Development Companies, LLC, Ginsburg Development Companies Corp., GDC Construction & Development Corp., and Fairways Wallkill, LLC, pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) to strike the respective answers of Mauricio Soares to the third-party complaint and the second third-party complaint for failure to appear for a deposition and directing the entry of default judgments against him and substituting therefor a provision granting the motions to the extent of precluding Mauricio Soares from offering any testimony at trial; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the appellant payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In the absence of evidence that the appellant willfully and contumaciously failed to appear for an examination before trial, the Supreme Court should not have stricken his answer (see Cambry v Lincoln Gardens, 50 AD3d 1081 [2008]; Conciatori v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 46 AD3d 501 [2007]). The appropriate remedy was to preclude the appellant from offering any testimony at trial (see Patel v DeLeon, 43 AD3d 432 [2007]; Williams v Ryder TRS, Inc., 29 AD3d 784 [2006]). Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Florio and Balkin, 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 third-party defendant Mauricio Soares appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Lubell, J.), entered June 3, 2009, which granted the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff Leopard Framing Corp., and the separate motion of the defendants second third-party plaintiffs, Ginsburg Development Companies, LLC, Ginsburg Development Companies Corp., GDC Construction & Development Corp. and Fairways Wallkill, LLC, pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) to strike his respective answers to the third-party complaint and the second third-party complaint for failure to appear for a deposition, and directed the entry of default judgments against him.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions granting the respective motions of the defendant/ third-party plaintiff Leopard Framing Corp., and the defendants/second third-party plaintiffs Ginsburg Development Companies, LLC, Ginsburg Development Companies Corp., GDC Construction & Development Corp., and Fairways Wallkill, LLC, pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) to strike the respective answers of Mauricio Soares to the third-party complaint and the second third-party complaint for failure to appear for a deposition and directing the entry of default judgments against him and substituting therefor a provision granting the motions to the extent of precluding Mauricio Soares from offering any testimony at trial; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the appellant payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In the absence of evidence that the appellant willfully and contumaciously failed to appear for an examination before trial, the Supreme Court should not have stricken his answer (see Cambry v Lincoln Gardens, 50 AD3d 1081 [2008]; Conciatori v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 46 AD3d 501 [2007]). The appropriate remedy was to preclude the appellant from offering any testimony at trial (see Patel v DeLeon, 43 AD3d 432 [2007]; Williams v Ryder TRS, Inc., 29 AD3d 784 [2006]). Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Florio and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.3d 1269, 903 N.Y.S.2d 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobenas-v-ginsburg-development-companies-llc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack