Moray v. City of Yonkers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moray v. City of Yonkers

72 A.D.3d 766, 898 N.Y.S.2d 470

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

DecidedApril 13, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 72 A.D.3d 766 (Moray v. City of Yonkers) 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

Moray v. City of Yonkers, 72 A.D.3d 766, 898 N.Y.S.2d 470 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated March 5, 2009, which, in effect, granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Ahmed Hakki pursuant to CFLR 3126 which was to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress insofar as asserted against him, and (2) an order of the same court dated [767]*767June 9, 2009, which granted her motion to settle the transcript of the proceedings held in the above-entitled action on December 31, 2008.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated June 9, 2009, is dismissed, as the plaintiff is not aggrieved by that order; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated March 5, 2009, is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and that branch of the motion of the defendant Ahmed Hakki pursuant to CPLR 3126 which was to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The drastic remedy of striking a pleading or dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failure to comply with court-Ordered disclosure should be granted only where the conduct of the resisting party is shown to be willful and contumacious (see Northfield Ins. Co. v Model Towing & Recovery, 63 AD3d 808 [2009]; Mei Yan Zhang v Santana, 52 AD3d 484, 485 [2008]; Xina v City of New York, 13 AD3d 440, 441 [2004]; Frias v Fortini, 240 AD2d 467 [1997]). The record does not support the dismissal of the cause of action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress pursuant to CPLR 3126, as there was no evidence of willful or contumacious conduct in connection with the plaintiffs failure to authorize the release of the records at issue (see Simpson v City of New York, 10 AD3d 601, 602-603 [2004]; Lerner v Knot, 201 AD2d 466 [1994]). Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), dated March 5, 2009, which, in effect, granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Ahmed Hakki pursuant to CFLR 3126 which was to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress insofar as asserted against him, and (2) an order of the same court dated [767]*767June 9, 2009, which granted her motion to settle the transcript of the proceedings held in the above-entitled action on December 31, 2008.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated June 9, 2009, is dismissed, as the plaintiff is not aggrieved by that order; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated March 5, 2009, is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and that branch of the motion of the defendant Ahmed Hakki pursuant to CPLR 3126 which was to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The drastic remedy of striking a pleading or dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failure to comply with court-Ordered disclosure should be granted only where the conduct of the resisting party is shown to be willful and contumacious (see Northfield Ins. Co. v Model Towing & Recovery, 63 AD3d 808 [2009]; Mei Yan Zhang v Santana, 52 AD3d 484, 485 [2008]; Xina v City of New York, 13 AD3d 440, 441 [2004]; Frias v Fortini, 240 AD2d 467 [1997]). The record does not support the dismissal of the cause of action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress pursuant to CPLR 3126, as there was no evidence of willful or contumacious conduct in connection with the plaintiffs failure to authorize the release of the records at issue (see Simpson v City of New York, 10 AD3d 601, 602-603 [2004]; Lerner v Knot, 201 AD2d 466 [1994]). Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 766, 898 N.Y.S.2d 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moray-v-city-of-yonkers-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack