DeMasi v. Dine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeMasi v. Dine

155 A.D.2d 583, 548 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14397

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 155 A.D.2d 583 (DeMasi v. Dine) 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

DeMasi v. Dine, 155 A.D.2d 583, 548 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14397 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), entered September 9, 1988, which, upon the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff disregarded the defendants’ demand for disclosure and an order of the court directing that disclosure. While there is no requirement that an affidavit of merit be provided by the plaintiff, the failure of the plaintiff to have done so together with his actions herein were properly considered by Justice O’Shaughnessy (see, Wolfson v Nassau County Med. Center, 141 AD2d 815). It appears that the plaintiff has acted in a deliberate and contumacious manner justifying dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126. Mangano, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Hooper, 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 (O’Shaughnessy, J.), entered September 9, 1988, which, upon the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff disregarded the defendants’ demand for disclosure and an order of the court directing that disclosure. While there is no requirement that an affidavit of merit be provided by the plaintiff, the failure of the plaintiff to have done so together with his actions herein were properly considered by Justice O’Shaughnessy (see, Wolfson v Nassau County Med. Center, 141 AD2d 815). It appears that the plaintiff has acted in a deliberate and contumacious manner justifying dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126. Mangano, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 583, 548 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demasi-v-dine-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack