Liotti v. Ruk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liotti v. Ruk

282 A.D.2d 717, 724 N.Y.S.2d 328, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4210

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

DecidedApril 30, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 717 (Liotti v. Ruk) 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

Liotti v. Ruk, 282 A.D.2d 717, 724 N.Y.S.2d 328, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4210 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover unpaid legal fees, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), dated May 19, 2000, which denied her motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failure to comply with a conditional order of dismissal of the same court dated December 20, 1999.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

As a consequence of the plaintiffs failure to comply with a conditional order of dismissal, that order became absolute (see, Kepple v Hill Assocs., 275 AD2d 299, 230; Tirone v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 264 AD2d 415; Askenazi v Hymil Mfg. Co., 263 AD2d 443). To be relieved from the adverse impact of the order of dismissal, the plaintiff had to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to timely comply with the discovery demand, and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see, Barriga v Sapo, 250 AD2d 795; Michaud v City of New York, 242 AD2d 369; Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Griffo, 240 AD2d 459). The plaintiff submitted a reasonable excuse for the six-day delay in serving the amended response to the defendant’s first set of interrogatories (see, CPLR 2005). Furthermore, the [718]*718amended response established the existence of a meritorious cause of action. Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover unpaid legal fees, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), dated May 19, 2000, which denied her motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failure to comply with a conditional order of dismissal of the same court dated December 20, 1999.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

As a consequence of the plaintiffs failure to comply with a conditional order of dismissal, that order became absolute (see, Kepple v Hill Assocs., 275 AD2d 299, 230; Tirone v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 264 AD2d 415; Askenazi v Hymil Mfg. Co., 263 AD2d 443). To be relieved from the adverse impact of the order of dismissal, the plaintiff had to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to timely comply with the discovery demand, and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see, Barriga v Sapo, 250 AD2d 795; Michaud v City of New York, 242 AD2d 369; Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Griffo, 240 AD2d 459). The plaintiff submitted a reasonable excuse for the six-day delay in serving the amended response to the defendant’s first set of interrogatories (see, CPLR 2005). Furthermore, the [718]*718amended response established the existence of a meritorious cause of action. Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 717, 724 N.Y.S.2d 328, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liotti-v-ruk-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack