Krisztin v. Oak Beach Inn Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Krisztin v. Oak Beach Inn Corp.

306 A.D.2d 249, 760 N.Y.S.2d 354, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6253

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

DecidedJune 2, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 249 (Krisztin v. Oak Beach Inn 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

Krisztin v. Oak Beach Inn Corp., 306 A.D.2d 249, 760 N.Y.S.2d 354, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6253 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated June 17, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendant Town of Babylon pursuant to CPLR 3042 (d) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record establishes that the plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with the respondent’s demand for a verified bill of [250]*250particulars was willful. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting the respondent’s motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see CPLR 3042 [d]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated June 17, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendant Town of Babylon pursuant to CPLR 3042 (d) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record establishes that the plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with the respondent’s demand for a verified bill of [250]*250particulars was willful. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting the respondent’s motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see CPLR 3042 [d]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 249, 760 N.Y.S.2d 354, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krisztin-v-oak-beach-inn-corp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack