John R. Souto, Co. v. Coratolo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

John R. Souto, Co. v. Coratolo

293 A.D.2d 288, 739 N.Y.S.2d 708, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3457

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

DecidedApril 4, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 288 (John R. Souto, Co. v. Coratolo) 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

John R. Souto, Co. v. Coratolo, 293 A.D.2d 288, 739 N.Y.S.2d 708, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3457 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered on or about October 10, 2000, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to strike the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action, which was commenced in 1989, was properly dismissed upon a finding that plaintiff willfully failed to comply with the disclosure deadlines in the preliminary conference order of April 7, 2000 (CPLR 3126). Such willfulness can be inferred from a record showing that the preliminary conference order had extended a deadline for the filing of a note of issue that was set in a 90-day notice given by the court itself, that plaintiffs did not promptly object to the disclosure that defendants provided in purported compliance with their obliga[289]*289tions under the preliminary conference order, that plaintiffs purported efforts at compliance were at best partial and belated, and that depositions were never conducted largely because of plaintiffs inexplicable failure to respond to any of defendants’ repeated letters advising plaintiff of available deposition dates (see, Zletz v Wetanson, 67 NY2d 711, 713). As the motion court found, plaintiffs conduct virtually insured that a note of issue would not be filed by the deadline set in the preliminary conference order. Concur—Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger 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 (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered on or about October 10, 2000, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to strike the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action, which was commenced in 1989, was properly dismissed upon a finding that plaintiff willfully failed to comply with the disclosure deadlines in the preliminary conference order of April 7, 2000 (CPLR 3126). Such willfulness can be inferred from a record showing that the preliminary conference order had extended a deadline for the filing of a note of issue that was set in a 90-day notice given by the court itself, that plaintiffs did not promptly object to the disclosure that defendants provided in purported compliance with their obliga[289]*289tions under the preliminary conference order, that plaintiffs purported efforts at compliance were at best partial and belated, and that depositions were never conducted largely because of plaintiffs inexplicable failure to respond to any of defendants’ repeated letters advising plaintiff of available deposition dates (see, Zletz v Wetanson, 67 NY2d 711, 713). As the motion court found, plaintiffs conduct virtually insured that a note of issue would not be filed by the deadline set in the preliminary conference order. Concur—Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 288, 739 N.Y.S.2d 708, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-r-souto-co-v-coratolo-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack