Perez v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perez v. New York City Housing Authority

302 A.D.2d 210, 753 N.Y.S.2d 375, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 833

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 302 A.D.2d 210 (Perez v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Perez v. New York City Housing Authority, 302 A.D.2d 210, 753 N.Y.S.2d 375, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Or[211]*211der, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered on or about July 24, 2001, which, inter alia, granted the cross motion of defendant New York City Housing Authority to dismiss plaintiffs recommenced action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The infant plaintiff, by her legal guardian, argues that this second personal injury brought on her behalf to recover for injuries allegedly sustained in May 1995 was properly commenced, and was not barred by the dismissal of her identical first action, inasmuch as the order dismissing the first action did not state that the dismissal was on the merits, and was not denominated an order of preclusion. While not denominated as such, however, the order dismissing the first action was tantamount to an order of preclusion, the dismissal of the action having been premised on plaintiffs unjustified, unexplained refusal to comply with certain relevant discovery requests and a conditional order of dismissal (Perez v New York City Hous. Auth., 294 AD2d 170 [2002]; see e.g. Taylor v New York City Hous. Auth., 234 AD2d 52 [1996]; Berman v Szpilzinger, 200 AD2d 367 [1994]). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Buckley, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

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

Or[211]*211der, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered on or about July 24, 2001, which, inter alia, granted the cross motion of defendant New York City Housing Authority to dismiss plaintiffs recommenced action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The infant plaintiff, by her legal guardian, argues that this second personal injury brought on her behalf to recover for injuries allegedly sustained in May 1995 was properly commenced, and was not barred by the dismissal of her identical first action, inasmuch as the order dismissing the first action did not state that the dismissal was on the merits, and was not denominated an order of preclusion. While not denominated as such, however, the order dismissing the first action was tantamount to an order of preclusion, the dismissal of the action having been premised on plaintiffs unjustified, unexplained refusal to comply with certain relevant discovery requests and a conditional order of dismissal (Perez v New York City Hous. Auth., 294 AD2d 170 [2002]; see e.g. Taylor v New York City Hous. Auth., 234 AD2d 52 [1996]; Berman v Szpilzinger, 200 AD2d 367 [1994]). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Buckley, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 210, 753 N.Y.S.2d 375, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack