Ferrarese v. USAA Casualty Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ferrarese v. USAA Casualty Insurance

271 A.D.2d 401, 707 N.Y.S.2d 327, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3770

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

DecidedApril 3, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 401 (Ferrarese v. USAA Casualty Insurance) 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

Ferrarese v. USAA Casualty Insurance, 271 A.D.2d 401, 707 N.Y.S.2d 327, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3770 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to obtain no fault benefits, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated January 5, 1999, which denied his motion, inter alia, to strike the defendant’s answer and set the matter down for inquest, and (2) an amended order of the same court dated January 15, 1999, which, upon consideration of additional reply papers of the plaintiff, adhered to the prior determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 5, 1999, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the amended order dated January 15, 1999; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated January 15, 1999, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, to strike the defendant’s answer since the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the defendant’s failure to comply with any discovery demands was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see, CPLR 3126; Frias v Fortini, 240 AD2d 467; see also, Garcia v First Spanish Baptist Church, 259 AD2d 465; Garnett v Hudson Rent A Car, 258 AD2d 559; Kubacka v Town of N. Hempstead, 240 AD2d 374; Battaglia v Hofmeister, 100 AD2d 833).

[402]*402The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and. Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to obtain no fault benefits, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated January 5, 1999, which denied his motion, inter alia, to strike the defendant’s answer and set the matter down for inquest, and (2) an amended order of the same court dated January 15, 1999, which, upon consideration of additional reply papers of the plaintiff, adhered to the prior determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 5, 1999, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the amended order dated January 15, 1999; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated January 15, 1999, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, to strike the defendant’s answer since the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the defendant’s failure to comply with any discovery demands was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see, CPLR 3126; Frias v Fortini, 240 AD2d 467; see also, Garcia v First Spanish Baptist Church, 259 AD2d 465; Garnett v Hudson Rent A Car, 258 AD2d 559; Kubacka v Town of N. Hempstead, 240 AD2d 374; Battaglia v Hofmeister, 100 AD2d 833).

[402]*402The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and. Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 401, 707 N.Y.S.2d 327, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferrarese-v-usaa-casualty-insurance-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack