Rodriguez v. Colasuonno

238 A.D.2d 329, 656 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3421
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 7, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 329 (Rodriguez v. Colasuonno) 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
Rodriguez v. Colasuonno, 238 A.D.2d 329, 656 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an oral joint-venture agreement, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated March 14,1996, as, upon granting their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216, conditioned the dismissal on the plaintiff’s failure to pay $750 to the defendants as and for legal fees and to provide discovery.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof which conditioned the dismissal of the complaint on the plaintiffs failure to comply with the directives of the court; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the appellants, and the complaint is dismissed.

Once a conditional order of dismissal becomes effective by its [330]*330terms (see, Bock v Schiowitz, 168 AD2d 593), a plaintiff can open up his default only by establishing a reasonable excuse for his delay and a meritorious cause of action (see, Zirin v Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr., 216 AD2d 461). The plaintiff has failed to proffer any explanation for his failure to timely comply with the discovery demands, and thus the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint "unless” the plaintiff provided the requested discovery and paid $750 to the defendants as legal fees (see, Carven Assocs. v American Home Assur. Corp., 175 AD2d 790). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Williams v. New Style Limousine, Inc.
1 Misc. 3d 502 (New York Supreme Court, 2003)
Fujah v. V-M Auto Refinishing Corp.
192 Misc. 2d 170 (New York Supreme Court, 2002)
Cenzano v. Cenzano
250 A.D.2d 568 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
238 A.D.2d 329, 656 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-colasuonno-nyappdiv-1997.