Garcia v. Tribeca Broadway Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garcia v. Tribeca Broadway Associates

7 A.D.3d 408, 776 N.Y.S.2d 484, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7094

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

DecidedMay 20, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.3d 408 (Garcia v. Tribeca Broadway 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

Garcia v. Tribeca Broadway Associates, 7 A.D.3d 408, 776 N.Y.S.2d 484, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7094 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about August 1, 2003, which stayed an earlier order conditionally granting dismissal of the complaint unless plaintiff was deposed and submitted to a medical examination by July 15, 2003, and adjourned the matter to October 1, 2003, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff presented just cause for extending the period for his compliance (CPLR 2201, 2004). The court reasonably concluded that plaintiff—rather than willfully avoiding discovery—was simply experiencing difficulty obtaining a visa in Mexico to facilitate his appearance here for deposition and examination. We note that the parties have entered into a stipulation to conduct plaintiffs deposition and independent medical examination in New York. Under the circumstances, imposing the penalty of dismissal would have inappropriately deprived plaintiff of his day in court.

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about August 1, 2003, which stayed an earlier order conditionally granting dismissal of the complaint unless plaintiff was deposed and submitted to a medical examination by July 15, 2003, and adjourned the matter to October 1, 2003, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff presented just cause for extending the period for his compliance (CPLR 2201, 2004). The court reasonably concluded that plaintiff—rather than willfully avoiding discovery—was simply experiencing difficulty obtaining a visa in Mexico to facilitate his appearance here for deposition and examination. We note that the parties have entered into a stipulation to conduct plaintiffs deposition and independent medical examination in New York. Under the circumstances, imposing the penalty of dismissal would have inappropriately deprived plaintiff of his day in court.

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 408, 776 N.Y.S.2d 484, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-v-tribeca-broadway-associates-nyappdiv-2004.