LaSalle Talman Bank, F.S.B. v. Weisblum & Felice

99 A.D.3d 543, 951 N.Y.2d 871
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 16, 2012·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

The complaint was properly dismissed, given that plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders despite the fact that the second order clearly warned plaintiff that its action would be dismissed unless it complied. Plaintiffs supplemental discovery response was late and incomplete, its excuse for failing to respond in a timely manner lacks merit, and it has not offered any excuse for those documents that it has still not exchanged. Thus, it can be reasonably inferred that plaintiffs conduct has been willful and contumacious (see Johnson v City of New York, 188 AD2d 302, 303 [1st Dept 1992]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

LaSalle Talman Bank, F.S.B. v. Weisblum & Felice, 99 A.D.3d 543, 951 N.Y.2d 871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

99 A.D.3d 543 (LaSalle Talman Bank, F.S.B. v. Weisblum & Felice) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Abuzaid v. Almayouf
2024 NY Slip Op 31445(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
De L'ero v. Nelson, Robinson Á El Ashmway PPLC
2024 NY Slip Op 30529(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
East Dr. Hous. Dev. Corp. v. Lawrence
2024 NY Slip Op 30470(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)