Lehr v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lehr v. City of New York

189 A.D.2d 654, 592 N.Y.S.2d 257, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 265

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 189 A.D.2d 654 (Lehr 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

Lehr v. City of New York, 189 A.D.2d 654, 592 N.Y.S.2d 257, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 265 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about October 1, 1991, which denied plaintiffs motion to strike defendant Transit Authority’s answer for failure to produce a knowledgable witness for examination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This is a negligence action in which plaintiff alleges defendant negligently failed to maintain the sidewalk in front of the Bank of New York, located on 48 Wall Street. Plaintiff alleges that defendant consistently defied several court orders to produce a knowledgeable witness with respect to the sidewalk grating in question. Although we do not condone defendant’s partial compliance, we cannot characterize defendant’s conduct as willful, evasive or contumacious (see, Fucci v Fucci, 166 AD2d 551; Sawh v Bridges, 120 AD2d 74).

Since plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden of showing that the defendant’s default was deliberate, he is not entitled to the drastic remedy of dismissal of the complaint. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about October 1, 1991, which denied plaintiffs motion to strike defendant Transit Authority’s answer for failure to produce a knowledgable witness for examination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This is a negligence action in which plaintiff alleges defendant negligently failed to maintain the sidewalk in front of the Bank of New York, located on 48 Wall Street. Plaintiff alleges that defendant consistently defied several court orders to produce a knowledgeable witness with respect to the sidewalk grating in question. Although we do not condone defendant’s partial compliance, we cannot characterize defendant’s conduct as willful, evasive or contumacious (see, Fucci v Fucci, 166 AD2d 551; Sawh v Bridges, 120 AD2d 74).

Since plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden of showing that the defendant’s default was deliberate, he is not entitled to the drastic remedy of dismissal of the complaint. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D.2d 654, 592 N.Y.S.2d 257, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lehr-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack