Kashelkar v. Maharashtra Mandal New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kashelkar v. Maharashtra Mandal New York, Inc.

17 A.D.3d 245, 793 N.Y.S.2d 399, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4199

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

DecidedApril 21, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.3d 245 (Kashelkar v. Maharashtra Mandal New York, Inc.) 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

Kashelkar v. Maharashtra Mandal New York, Inc., 17 A.D.3d 245, 793 N.Y.S.2d 399, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered April 15, 2002, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs, defendants’ request for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 granted, a sanction of $500 is imposed against plaintiffs to be deposited with the Clerk for transmittal to the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance. The Clerk of Supreme Court, New York County is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The action was properly dismissed based on plaintiffs’ failure to comply with prior court orders conditionally dismissing the action unless plaintiffs served a complaint upon an attorney whom, they claim, was never properly substituted for defendants’ original attorney and therefore lacks authority to represent defendants (CFLR 3012 [b]; see Lusker v 85-87 Mercer St. Assoc., 272 AD2d 278 [2000]). Since plaintiffs offer no excuse for this noncompliance, their appeal, which continues to argue that the attorney in question was never properly substituted, is completely without merit, and, accordingly, should be sanctioned. Concur—Marlow, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered April 15, 2002, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs, defendants’ request for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 granted, a sanction of $500 is imposed against plaintiffs to be deposited with the Clerk for transmittal to the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance. The Clerk of Supreme Court, New York County is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The action was properly dismissed based on plaintiffs’ failure to comply with prior court orders conditionally dismissing the action unless plaintiffs served a complaint upon an attorney whom, they claim, was never properly substituted for defendants’ original attorney and therefore lacks authority to represent defendants (CFLR 3012 [b]; see Lusker v 85-87 Mercer St. Assoc., 272 AD2d 278 [2000]). Since plaintiffs offer no excuse for this noncompliance, their appeal, which continues to argue that the attorney in question was never properly substituted, is completely without merit, and, accordingly, should be sanctioned. Concur—Marlow, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 245, 793 N.Y.S.2d 399, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kashelkar-v-maharashtra-mandal-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack