Piche v. Greenpoint Savings Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Piche v. Greenpoint Savings Bank

21 A.D.3d 886, 800 N.Y.S.2d 510, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8969

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

DecidedSeptember 6, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 886 (Piche v. Greenpoint Savings Bank) 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

Piche v. Greenpoint Savings Bank, 21 A.D.3d 886, 800 N.Y.S.2d 510, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and conversion, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated February 24, 2004, which, upon an order of the same court dated November 25, 2003, adhering, upon reargument and renewal, to its prior determination in an order dated April 8, 2003, granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the order dated November 25, 2003, is vacated, the motion to dismiss the complaint is denied, the complaint is reinstated, and the order dated April 8, 2003, is modified accordingly.

The record does not support the conclusion that the plaintiffs’ failure to timely respond to some of the defendants’ demands for disclosure was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith. Thus, the” Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 based on such failure (see Felipe v 2820 W. 36th St. Realty Corp., 7 AD3d 483 [2004]). Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and conversion, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated February 24, 2004, which, upon an order of the same court dated November 25, 2003, adhering, upon reargument and renewal, to its prior determination in an order dated April 8, 2003, granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the order dated November 25, 2003, is vacated, the motion to dismiss the complaint is denied, the complaint is reinstated, and the order dated April 8, 2003, is modified accordingly.

The record does not support the conclusion that the plaintiffs’ failure to timely respond to some of the defendants’ demands for disclosure was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith. Thus, the” Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 based on such failure (see Felipe v 2820 W. 36th St. Realty Corp., 7 AD3d 483 [2004]). Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 886, 800 N.Y.S.2d 510, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piche-v-greenpoint-savings-bank-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack