Maneti v. Ariana Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maneti v. Ariana Realty Co.

19 A.D.3d 463, 796 N.Y.S.2d 243, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6553

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

DecidedJune 13, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.3d 463 (Maneti v. Ariana Realty Co.) 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

Maneti v. Ariana Realty Co., 19 A.D.3d 463, 796 N.Y.S.2d 243, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6553 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated December 18, 2003, which, inter alia, granted those branches of the motion of the defendants third-party plaintiffs and the cross motion of the third-party defendant to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 and 3216.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Given the plaintiffs repeated failures to provide timely and good faith responses to court-ordered disclosure, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint (see CPLR 3126; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [1999]).

In light of this determination, we do not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Luciano, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated December 18, 2003, which, inter alia, granted those branches of the motion of the defendants third-party plaintiffs and the cross motion of the third-party defendant to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 and 3216.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Given the plaintiffs repeated failures to provide timely and good faith responses to court-ordered disclosure, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint (see CPLR 3126; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [1999]).

In light of this determination, we do not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 463, 796 N.Y.S.2d 243, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maneti-v-ariana-realty-co-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack