Meyer v. Southampton Art Partners, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meyer v. Southampton Art Partners, Inc.

199 A.D.2d 222, 606 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12838

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 1993·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about November 24, 1992, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Dismissal of the complaint is appropriate when a plaintiff repeatedly and willfully disobeys the court’s successive discovery orders (Kogan v Royal Indem. Co., 179 AD2d 399). Since plaintiff herein repeatedly failed to appear at scheduled depositions, it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to dismiss the complaint. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, 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 November 24, 1992, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Dismissal of the complaint is appropriate when a plaintiff repeatedly and willfully disobeys the court’s successive discovery orders (Kogan v Royal Indem. Co., 179 AD2d 399). Since plaintiff herein repeatedly failed to appear at scheduled depositions, it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to dismiss the complaint. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

Meyer v. Southampton Art Partners, Inc., 199 A.D.2d 222, 606 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

199 A.D.2d 222 (Meyer v. Southampton Art Partners, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related