Marrone v. Orson Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marrone v. Orson Holding Corp.

302 A.D.2d 371, 753 N.Y.S.2d 899

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 3, 2003·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), entered August 27, 2002, which granted the plaintiffs motion to strike their answer pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) for failure to comply with a prior discovery order.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

As a result of the defendants’ failure to produce a witness for a deposition on or before May 17, 2002, the conditional order dated April 17, 2002, became absolute (see Stewart v City of New York, 266 AD2d 452; Clissuras v Concord Vil. Owners, 233 AD2d 475). To be relieved of the adverse impact of the or[372]*372der of dismissal, the defendants were required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to produce a witness for the deposition and the existence of a meritorious defense (see Macancela v Pekurar, 286 AD2d 320). The defendants failed to satisfy this standard. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, 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 defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), entered August 27, 2002, which granted the plaintiffs motion to strike their answer pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) for failure to comply with a prior discovery order.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

As a result of the defendants’ failure to produce a witness for a deposition on or before May 17, 2002, the conditional order dated April 17, 2002, became absolute (see Stewart v City of New York, 266 AD2d 452; Clissuras v Concord Vil. Owners, 233 AD2d 475). To be relieved of the adverse impact of the or[372]*372der of dismissal, the defendants were required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to produce a witness for the deposition and the existence of a meritorious defense (see Macancela v Pekurar, 286 AD2d 320). The defendants failed to satisfy this standard. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Marrone v. Orson Holding Corp., 302 A.D.2d 371, 753 N.Y.S.2d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

302 A.D.2d 371 (Marrone v. Orson Holding Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related