DeGennaro v. Robbie Robinson Textiles, Inc.

224 A.D.2d 574, 638 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1378
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 20, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 574 (DeGennaro v. Robbie Robinson Textiles, 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
DeGennaro v. Robbie Robinson Textiles, Inc., 224 A.D.2d 574, 638 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated September 28, 1994, as granted the separate motions of the defendants Robbie Robinson Textiles, Inc., Paterson Silk Stores, Inc., and Rockland Industries, Inc., to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint as against the respondents. The plaintiffs’ failure to comply with previous discovery orders, considered in conjunction with their history of resisting disclosure, fully supports the court’s exercise of discretion in striking the plaintiffs’ complaint as to the respondents (see, Kaplan v Elkind, 208 AD2d 683; Bigman v Dime Sav. Bank, 181 AD2d 648). The dismissal is justified based on the plaintiffs’ repeated lack of responses to the respondents’ demands for disclosure and the plaintiffs’ failure to timely and fully comply with the court orders issued enforcing those demands (see, Zletz v Wetanson, 67 NY2d 711, 713; Wolfson v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 141 AD2d 815; see also, Polito v DeTomaso, 208 AD2d 912; Mills v Ducille, 170 AD2d 657, 658; Bigman v Dime Sav. Bank, supra; Sawh v Bridges, 120 AD2d 74, 78).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Edwards v. Prescott Cab Corp.
110 A.D.3d 671 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Aloyts v. 601 Tenant's Corp.
84 A.D.3d 1287 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Castelle v. Evangelista
298 A.D.2d 347 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Montgomery v. City of New York
296 A.D.2d 386 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Ordonez v. Guerra
295 A.D.2d 325 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Degennaro v. Paterson Mills, Inc.
280 A.D.2d 512 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Cruz v. Edwards
260 A.D.2d 341 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
DiDomenico v. C & S Aeromatik Supplies, Inc.
252 A.D.2d 41 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Castrignano v. Flynn
255 A.D.2d 352 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Kubacka v. Town of North Hempstead
240 A.D.2d 374 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Herrera v. City of New York
238 A.D.2d 475 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
224 A.D.2d 574, 638 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/degennaro-v-robbie-robinson-textiles-inc-nyappdiv-1996.