Grgurovic v. Controlled Combustion Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grgurovic v. Controlled Combustion Co.

82 A.D.3d 669, 919 N.Y.2d 337

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 669 (Grgurovic v. Controlled Combustion Co.) 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

Grgurovic v. Controlled Combustion Co., 82 A.D.3d 669, 919 N.Y.2d 337 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Because the judgment sought to be appealed did not result from an order deciding a motion “made upon notice” as contemplated by CPLR 5701 (a) (2), it is not appealable as of right (see Jun-Yong Kim v A&J Produce Corp., 15 AD3d 251, 252 [2005]). However, we deem the notice of appeal a motion for leave to appeal pursuant to CPLR 5701 (c), and we grant the motion (see id.).

On the merits, the court providently exercised its discretion by dismissing the complaint as against defendants. Plaintiffs repeatedly failed to comply with the court’s discovery orders. Their wilfulness can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances (see Youni Gems Corp. v Bassco Creations Inc., 70 AD3d 454, 455 [2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 863 [2010]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Román, JJ.

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

Because the judgment sought to be appealed did not result from an order deciding a motion “made upon notice” as contemplated by CPLR 5701 (a) (2), it is not appealable as of right (see Jun-Yong Kim v A&J Produce Corp., 15 AD3d 251, 252 [2005]). However, we deem the notice of appeal a motion for leave to appeal pursuant to CPLR 5701 (c), and we grant the motion (see id.).

On the merits, the court providently exercised its discretion by dismissing the complaint as against defendants. Plaintiffs repeatedly failed to comply with the court’s discovery orders. Their wilfulness can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances (see Youni Gems Corp. v Bassco Creations Inc., 70 AD3d 454, 455 [2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 863 [2010]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 669, 919 N.Y.2d 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grgurovic-v-controlled-combustion-co-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack