Pollan v. Country-Wide Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pollan v. Country-Wide Insurance

266 A.D.2d 130, 698 N.Y.S.2d 483, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12344

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

DecidedNovember 30, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 130 (Pollan v. Country-Wide Insurance) 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

Pollan v. Country-Wide Insurance, 266 A.D.2d 130, 698 N.Y.S.2d 483, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered October 19, 1998, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to vacate a prior order, inter alia, granting plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant’s answer upon its failure to answer the calendar call, unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Appeals from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about February 1, 1999, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to reargue the denial of its motion to vacate the striking of its answer, and order, same court (Stephen Crane, J., for Harold Tompkins, J., pursuant to CPLR 9002), entered March 11, 1999, which denied defendant’s motion to resettle the order of February 1, 1999, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The record establishes a pattern of willfully dilatory and contumacious conduct that, given at best a dubious defense, amply justified the extreme sanction that was imposed. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Williams, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered October 19, 1998, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to vacate a prior order, inter alia, granting plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant’s answer upon its failure to answer the calendar call, unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Appeals from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about February 1, 1999, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to reargue the denial of its motion to vacate the striking of its answer, and order, same court (Stephen Crane, J., for Harold Tompkins, J., pursuant to CPLR 9002), entered March 11, 1999, which denied defendant’s motion to resettle the order of February 1, 1999, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The record establishes a pattern of willfully dilatory and contumacious conduct that, given at best a dubious defense, amply justified the extreme sanction that was imposed. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Williams, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 130, 698 N.Y.S.2d 483, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pollan-v-country-wide-insurance-nyappdiv-1999.