Milton v. 305/72 Owners Corp.

19 A.D.3d 133, 796 N.Y.S.2d 344, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5919
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 2, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 133 (Milton v. 305/72 Owners Corp.) 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
Milton v. 305/72 Owners Corp., 19 A.D.3d 133, 796 N.Y.S.2d 344, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered January 27, 2004, which dismissed plaintiffs verified complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered November 26, 2003, which denied plaintiffs motion for a protective order regarding medical and psychiatric records sought by defendant, unanimously dismissed as academic, without costs.

The dismissal order is not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made on notice, and the record is devoid of any subsequent motion to vacate that would have properly placed the issue before this Court (Serradilla v Lords Corp., 12 AD3d 279 [2004]). However, in the interest of judicial economy, we, sua sponte, deem the notice of appeal to be a motion for leave to appeal, and grant such leave (id.; CPLR 5701 [c]).

Plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with court orders to supply medical authorizations, and failed to appeal from any of those orders until after the complaint was dismissed. Plaintiff also failed to offer a reasonable excuse for disobeying the court’s orders. Contrary to plaintiffs contention, he did not have to disobey the court’s directive to produce medical authorizations to be able to appeal the IAS court’s earlier rulings. He could have appealed the orders and sought a stay pending determination of the appeal. Absent a reasonable excuse for plaintiffs dis[134]*134obedience, dismissal of the action was a proper exercise of discretion (Sinn v City of New York, 304 AD2d 504 [2003]). Concur— Saxe, J.P, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Related

Junmei Zhang v. City of New York
199 N.Y.S.3d 70 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Board of Managers of the 129 Lafayette Street Condominium v. 129 Lafayette Street, LLC
103 A.D.3d 511 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
AllianceBernstein L.P. v. Atha
100 A.D.3d 499 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Walker v. Bowman
70 A.D.3d 1323 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Winn v. Tvedt
67 A.D.3d 569 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Alveranga-Duran v. New Whitehall Apartments
40 A.D.3d 287 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Maleski v. Lenander
38 A.D.3d 1192 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Jones v. Green
34 A.D.3d 260 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 A.D.3d 133, 796 N.Y.S.2d 344, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milton-v-30572-owners-corp-nyappdiv-2005.