O'Connor v. Root

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Connor v. Root

284 A.D.2d 979, 726 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5799

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

DecidedJune 8, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 979 (O'Connor v. Root) 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

O'Connor v. Root, 284 A.D.2d 979, 726 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment based upon defendants’ failure to comply with the parties’ agreed-upon discovery schedule. That “harsh remedy * * * is generally not warranted ‘absent a showing that the noncomplying party’s conduct was willful or contumacious’ ” (Gaylord Bros. v RND Co., 134 AD2d 848, quoting Sawh v Bridges, 120 AD2d 74, 78, appeal dismissed 69 NY2d 852). Here, there was no showing that defendants’ noncompliance was willful or contumacious (see, Monaco v Camie-Campbell, Inc., 256 AD2d 1214, 1216, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 93 NY2d 887). The court [980]*980also properly exercised its discretion, “in the interest of elementary fairness,” in relieving defendants from the consequences of the stipulation made by their former attorney (Matter of Way v Town of Poughkeepsie, 75 AD2d 602, 604; see, Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51, 54-55). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Michalek, J. — Default Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment based upon defendants’ failure to comply with the parties’ agreed-upon discovery schedule. That “harsh remedy * * * is generally not warranted ‘absent a showing that the noncomplying party’s conduct was willful or contumacious’ ” (Gaylord Bros. v RND Co., 134 AD2d 848, quoting Sawh v Bridges, 120 AD2d 74, 78, appeal dismissed 69 NY2d 852). Here, there was no showing that defendants’ noncompliance was willful or contumacious (see, Monaco v Camie-Campbell, Inc., 256 AD2d 1214, 1216, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 93 NY2d 887). The court [980]*980also properly exercised its discretion, “in the interest of elementary fairness,” in relieving defendants from the consequences of the stipulation made by their former attorney (Matter of Way v Town of Poughkeepsie, 75 AD2d 602, 604; see, Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51, 54-55). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Michalek, J. — Default Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 979, 726 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oconnor-v-root-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack