Pagano v. Malpeso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pagano v. Malpeso

96 A.D.3d 563, 946 N.Y.S.2d 475

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

DecidedJune 19, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 96 A.D.3d 563 (Pagano v. Malpeso) 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

Pagano v. Malpeso, 96 A.D.3d 563, 946 N.Y.S.2d 475 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered May 19, 2011, dismissing the action pursuant to an order which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to strike the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action based on pro se plaintiff’s pattern of disobeying court orders and failing to provide discovery (see CPLR 3126 [3]; Arts4All, Ltd. v Hancock, 54 AD3d 286, 287 [2008], affd 12 NY3d 846 [2009], cert denied 559 US —, 130 S Ct 1301 [2010]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. In addition, defendants did not appeal from that portion of the court’s prior order denying sanctions, and, in any event, sanctions are unwarranted. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Motion to compel production of deposition tapes denied.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered May 19, 2011, dismissing the action pursuant to an order which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to strike the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action based on pro se plaintiff’s pattern of disobeying court orders and failing to provide discovery (see CPLR 3126 [3]; Arts4All, Ltd. v Hancock, 54 AD3d 286, 287 [2008], affd 12 NY3d 846 [2009], cert denied 559 US —, 130 S Ct 1301 [2010]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. In addition, defendants did not appeal from that portion of the court’s prior order denying sanctions, and, in any event, sanctions are unwarranted. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Motion to compel production of deposition tapes denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.3d 563, 946 N.Y.S.2d 475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pagano-v-malpeso-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack