DeCicco v. Nassau Radiological Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeCicco v. Nassau Radiological Group

276 A.D.2d 582, 715 N.Y.S.2d 324, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10414

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 16, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated October 12, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff disregarded the defendants’ demands for disclosure and an order of the Supreme Court directing disclosure. The belated disclosure she provided in response to the defendants’ instant motion to dismiss was inadequate. Furthermore, she failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for the [583] inordinate delay. The plaintiffs conduct in this case supports an inference that her noncompliance was willful and contumacious. Consequently, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint (see, Ranfort v Peak Tours, 250 AD2d 747; Geltman v St. Agnes Hosp., 186 AD2d 534; DeMasi v Dine, 155 AD2d 583). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated October 12, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff disregarded the defendants’ demands for disclosure and an order of the Supreme Court directing disclosure. The belated disclosure she provided in response to the defendants’ instant motion to dismiss was inadequate. Furthermore, she failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for the [583] inordinate delay. The plaintiffs conduct in this case supports an inference that her noncompliance was willful and contumacious. Consequently, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint (see, Ranfort v Peak Tours, 250 AD2d 747; Geltman v St. Agnes Hosp., 186 AD2d 534; DeMasi v Dine, 155 AD2d 583). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

DeCicco v. Nassau Radiological Group, 276 A.D.2d 582, 715 N.Y.S.2d 324, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10414 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

276 A.D.2d 582 (DeCicco v. Nassau Radiological Group) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related