Goldstein v. CIBC World Markets Corp.

30 A.D.3d 217, 817 N.Y.S.2d 19
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 13, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 217 (Goldstein v. CIBC World Markets Corp.) 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
Goldstein v. CIBC World Markets Corp., 30 A.D.3d 217, 817 N.Y.S.2d 19 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered December 16, 2004, which denied plaintiffs motion denominated one to renew and reargue an order, same court and Justice, entered June 24, 2004, sua sponte dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126, deemed to be an order denying a motion to vacate the order of June 24, 2004, and judgment, same court and Justice, entered July 13, 2004, pursuant thereto, and, so considered, said order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the aforesaid judgment unanimously dismissed, without costs, in view of the foregoing.

While a pleading ordinarily should not be stricken absent a motion on notice, any concerns in that regard are dispelled by the repeated warnings the court gave plaintiff’s attorney at numerous compliance conferences that continued noncompliance could result in a dismissal, and the opportunity plaintiff had to challenge the dismissal in a subsequent motion made on notice from which he now appeals (see Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc. v Enviropower, LLC, 21 AD3d 855 [2005]). Plaintiffs year-long pattern of noncompliance with the court’s repeated compliance conference orders gave rise to an inference of willful and contumacious conduct (see Merchants T & F, Inc. v Kase & Druker, 19 AD3d 134 [2005]). The record does not bear out plaintiffs assertion that by the time of the dismissal, he had provided the disclosure sought. Nor does it bear out plaintiffs assertion that the noncompliance was due to his attorney’s illness. We have considered and rejected plaintiff’s other arguments. Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.

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

Related

Ganz v. Florman
2023 NY Slip Op 00632 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
122-24 Lexington Ave. Corp. v. Wesco Ins. Co.
2021 NY Slip Op 05918 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Rawlings v. Gillert
78 A.D.3d 806 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Gal-Ed v. 153rd Street Associates, LLC
73 A.D.3d 438 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Rodriguez v. United Bronx Parents, Inc.
70 A.D.3d 492 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Grant v. Rattoballi
57 A.D.3d 272 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Figiel v. Met Food
48 A.D.3d 330 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Dyer v. Armor Kone Elevator, Inc.
41 A.D.3d 305 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Jones v. Green
34 A.D.3d 260 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Figdor v. City of New York
33 A.D.3d 560 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 A.D.3d 217, 817 N.Y.S.2d 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-cibc-world-markets-corp-nyappdiv-2006.