Marrero v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marrero v. City of New York

287 A.D.2d 298, 731 N.Y.S.2d 361, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9361

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

DecidedOctober 11, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 298 (Marrero 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

Marrero v. City of New York, 287 A.D.2d 298, 731 N.Y.S.2d 361, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about July 7, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ answer pursuant to CPLR 3126, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this medical malpractice/wrongful death action, the motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ answer since the record before the court did not justify the inference that defendants’ failure to complete discovery had been willful, contumacious or in bad faith (see, Tsai v Hernandez, 284 AD2d 116). Notably, the delay about which plaintiffs complain was initially attributable to their own actions and omissions. Indeed, it appears from the record that defendants made good faith efforts at completing discovery on or before the cut-off date imposed by the motion court in its conditional order dated March 23, 2000.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Wallach and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about July 7, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ answer pursuant to CPLR 3126, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this medical malpractice/wrongful death action, the motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ answer since the record before the court did not justify the inference that defendants’ failure to complete discovery had been willful, contumacious or in bad faith (see, Tsai v Hernandez, 284 AD2d 116). Notably, the delay about which plaintiffs complain was initially attributable to their own actions and omissions. Indeed, it appears from the record that defendants made good faith efforts at completing discovery on or before the cut-off date imposed by the motion court in its conditional order dated March 23, 2000.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Wallach and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 298, 731 N.Y.S.2d 361, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marrero-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack