Quintanna v. Rogers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Quintanna v. Rogers

306 A.D.2d 167, 760 N.Y.S.2d 328, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7231

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

DecidedJune 19, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 167 (Quintanna v. Rogers) 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

Quintanna v. Rogers, 306 A.D.2d 167, 760 N.Y.S.2d 328, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7231 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie Manzanet, J.), entered June 17, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by appellants and third-party plaintiffs’ brief, denied their motion to strike plaintiffs’ note of issue, and deemed appellants to have waived their right to conduct physical examinations of plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered February 25, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, denied appellants’ motion to reargue, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying appellants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ note of issue and in determining that appellants had waived their right to a physical examination of plaintiffs by failing to comply with the deadlines set in the court’s prior order (see Mateo v City of New York, 282 AD2d 313 [2001]; Mayo v Lincoln Triangle Assoc., 248 AD2d 362 [1998]). Plaintiffs’ certificate of readiness contains no factual errors, since the court’s prior order provided for automatic waiver or preclusion for failure to comply with its directives, plaintiffs were deposed timely according to the prior order, and appellants have failed to allege any unusual or unanticipated circumstances which caused their noncompliance.

We have considered and rejected appellants’ remaining arguments. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie Manzanet, J.), entered June 17, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by appellants and third-party plaintiffs’ brief, denied their motion to strike plaintiffs’ note of issue, and deemed appellants to have waived their right to conduct physical examinations of plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered February 25, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, denied appellants’ motion to reargue, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying appellants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ note of issue and in determining that appellants had waived their right to a physical examination of plaintiffs by failing to comply with the deadlines set in the court’s prior order (see Mateo v City of New York, 282 AD2d 313 [2001]; Mayo v Lincoln Triangle Assoc., 248 AD2d 362 [1998]). Plaintiffs’ certificate of readiness contains no factual errors, since the court’s prior order provided for automatic waiver or preclusion for failure to comply with its directives, plaintiffs were deposed timely according to the prior order, and appellants have failed to allege any unusual or unanticipated circumstances which caused their noncompliance.

We have considered and rejected appellants’ remaining arguments. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 167, 760 N.Y.S.2d 328, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quintanna-v-rogers-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack