LaRocca v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LaRocca v. City of New York

259 A.D.2d 672, 685 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2701

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

DecidedMarch 22, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 672 (LaRocca 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

LaRocca v. City of New York, 259 A.D.2d 672, 685 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2701 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated January 29, 1998, which (1) denied its motion to modify a prior order of the same court, dated September 26, 1997, by extending its time to pay a monetary sanction, and (2) struck its answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[673]*673By order dated September 26, 1997, the Supreme Court conditionally granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike the defendant’s answer unless, inter alia, the defendant complied with the plaintiffs’ notice for discovery and inspection dated September 20, 1996, within a specified time frame. In light of the defendant’s subsequent failure to comply with the order, the Supreme Court properly struck the defendant’s answer. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, 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, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated January 29, 1998, which (1) denied its motion to modify a prior order of the same court, dated September 26, 1997, by extending its time to pay a monetary sanction, and (2) struck its answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[673]*673By order dated September 26, 1997, the Supreme Court conditionally granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike the defendant’s answer unless, inter alia, the defendant complied with the plaintiffs’ notice for discovery and inspection dated September 20, 1996, within a specified time frame. In light of the defendant’s subsequent failure to comply with the order, the Supreme Court properly struck the defendant’s answer. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 672, 685 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larocca-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.