Garcia v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garcia v. City of New York

81 A.D.3d 440, 916 N.Y.S.2d 770

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 81 A.D.3d 440 (Garcia 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

Garcia v. City of New York, 81 A.D.3d 440, 916 N.Y.S.2d 770 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[441]*441Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered December 24, 2009, which granted plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the answers of defendants City of New York, 1515 Bruckner Blvd. LLC, Citywide Contractors LLC and Kaila Construction Corporation unless they appear for their respective examinations before trial within 60 days of service of a copy of the order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants failed to comply with a preliminary conference order and two compliance conference orders issued over a period of 14 months to produce witnesses for examinations before trial. However, given counsel’s failure to file an affirmation in compliance with 22 NYCRR 202.7 (a) (2), it was a provident exercise of discretion to provide defendants with a final opportunity to produce witnesses for examinations before trial (see Reidel v Ryder TRS, Inc., 13 AD3d 170 [2004]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Acosta and Richter, JJ.

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

[441]*441Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered December 24, 2009, which granted plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the answers of defendants City of New York, 1515 Bruckner Blvd. LLC, Citywide Contractors LLC and Kaila Construction Corporation unless they appear for their respective examinations before trial within 60 days of service of a copy of the order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants failed to comply with a preliminary conference order and two compliance conference orders issued over a period of 14 months to produce witnesses for examinations before trial. However, given counsel’s failure to file an affirmation in compliance with 22 NYCRR 202.7 (a) (2), it was a provident exercise of discretion to provide defendants with a final opportunity to produce witnesses for examinations before trial (see Reidel v Ryder TRS, Inc., 13 AD3d 170 [2004]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Acosta and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.3d 440, 916 N.Y.S.2d 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack