Fappiano v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fappiano v. City of New York

241 A.D.2d 509, 661 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7791

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

DecidedJuly 21, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 241 A.D.2d 509 (Fappiano v. City of New York) 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

Fappiano v. City of New York, 241 A.D.2d 509, 661 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants City of New York, New York City Police Department, and David Martinez appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated December 6, 1995, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike their answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Considering all of the circumstances surrounding the appellants’ inordinate procrastination in making full pretrial disclosure, including their noncompliance with multiple prior orders, we conclude that the order striking the appellants’ [510]*510answer (CPLR 3126 [3]) was properly made on the exercise of the “broad discretion of the trial court” (Zletz v Wetanson, 67 NY2d 711, 713, citing Reynolds Sec. v Underwriters Bank & Trust Co., 44 NY2d 568; Laverne v Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hollow, 18 NY2d 635, 637-638; Battaglia v Hofmeister, 100 AD2d 833, 834; see also, Herrera v City of New York, 238 AD2d 475; Sindeband v McCleod, 226 AD2d 623; Town of Southampton v Salten, 186 AD2d 796; 7A Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 42:494). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 defendants City of New York, New York City Police Department, and David Martinez appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated December 6, 1995, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike their answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Considering all of the circumstances surrounding the appellants’ inordinate procrastination in making full pretrial disclosure, including their noncompliance with multiple prior orders, we conclude that the order striking the appellants’ [510]*510answer (CPLR 3126 [3]) was properly made on the exercise of the “broad discretion of the trial court” (Zletz v Wetanson, 67 NY2d 711, 713, citing Reynolds Sec. v Underwriters Bank & Trust Co., 44 NY2d 568; Laverne v Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hollow, 18 NY2d 635, 637-638; Battaglia v Hofmeister, 100 AD2d 833, 834; see also, Herrera v City of New York, 238 AD2d 475; Sindeband v McCleod, 226 AD2d 623; Town of Southampton v Salten, 186 AD2d 796; 7A Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 42:494). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 509, 661 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fappiano-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack