Lantigua v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lantigua v. City of New York

254 A.D.2d 218, 679 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11349

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 218 (Lantigua v. City of New York) 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

Lantigua v. City of New York, 254 A.D.2d 218, 679 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11349 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered June 17, 1997, which struck defendant’s answer and granted plaintiff a default judgment, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 23, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion for reargument and, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer since plaintiff established that defendant failed to comply with court orders directing the production of witnesses with sufficient knowledge of the relevant circumstances and directing the payment of a $600 penalty and that such noncompliance, viewed cumulatively, was willful and contumacious and in bad faith (see, Pimental v City of New York, 246 AD2d 467). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered June 17, 1997, which struck defendant’s answer and granted plaintiff a default judgment, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 23, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion for reargument and, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer since plaintiff established that defendant failed to comply with court orders directing the production of witnesses with sufficient knowledge of the relevant circumstances and directing the payment of a $600 penalty and that such noncompliance, viewed cumulatively, was willful and contumacious and in bad faith (see, Pimental v City of New York, 246 AD2d 467). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 218, 679 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lantigua-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack