Enrico & Sons Contracting, Inc. v. Bridgemarket Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Enrico & Sons Contracting, Inc. v. Bridgemarket Associates

220 A.D.2d 368, 633 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10755

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

DecidedOctober 31, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 368 (Enrico & Sons Contracting, Inc. v. Bridgemarket Associates) 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

Enrico & Sons Contracting, Inc. v. Bridgemarket Associates, 220 A.D.2d 368, 633 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10755 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered March 9,1995 and March 20,1995, respectively, which granted defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint unless plaintiff served answers to certain interrogatories within 20 days and granted plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the trial calendar on condition that plaintiff pay defendant $750 within 10 days, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence of the communications between the parties’ attorneys approximately four months before the case was automatically dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, and of efforts by both sides to complete disclosure both before and after the automatic dismissal, satisfactorily demonstrates that plaintiff did not intend to abandon the action. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

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

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered March 9,1995 and March 20,1995, respectively, which granted defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint unless plaintiff served answers to certain interrogatories within 20 days and granted plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the trial calendar on condition that plaintiff pay defendant $750 within 10 days, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence of the communications between the parties’ attorneys approximately four months before the case was automatically dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, and of efforts by both sides to complete disclosure both before and after the automatic dismissal, satisfactorily demonstrates that plaintiff did not intend to abandon the action. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 368, 633 N.Y.S.2d 134, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enrico-sons-contracting-inc-v-bridgemarket-associates-nyappdiv-1995.