Russell v. B&B Industries, Inc.

309 A.D.2d 914, 766 N.Y.S.2d 374
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 27, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 309 A.D.2d 914 (Russell v. B&B Industries, Inc.) 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
Russell v. B&B Industries, Inc., 309 A.D.2d 914, 766 N.Y.S.2d 374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal [915]*915from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated November 25, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude the plaintiffs’ claims for damages and to dismiss the complaint based upon the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with so much of an order of the same court dated July 10, 2002, as directed that such claims would be precluded if the plaintiffs failed to appear for independent medical examinations by experts designated by the defendants by a date certain.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude their claims for damages and to dismiss the complaint since the plaintiffs repeatedly violated the Supreme Court’s discovery orders, including the order directing the injured plaintiff to appear for certain independent medical examinations (hereinafter IMEs) and violated the Supreme Court’s subsequent order directing that such claims would be precluded if he failed to complete all IMEs by a date certain (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [1999]; Gomez v Gateway Demolition Corp., 293 AD2d 649 [2002]; Abouzeid v Cadogan, 291 AD2d 423 [2002]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is raised for the first time on appeal and is not properly before this Court (see Zambito v Catanzaro, 264 AD2d 839 [1999]). Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matone v. Sycamore Realty Corp.
87 A.D.3d 1113 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Rock City Sound, Inc. v. Bashian & Farber, LLP
83 A.D.3d 685 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Friedman, Harfenist, Langer & Kraut v. Rosenthal
79 A.D.3d 798 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
McArthur v. New York City Housing Authority
48 A.D.3d 431 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Goldstein v. Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center
39 A.D.3d 816 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Prappas v. Papadatos
38 A.D.3d 871 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Russo v. Tolchin
35 A.D.3d 431 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Raymond v. Rutherford
12 A.D.3d 355 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Royal Caterers, LLC v. Marine Midland
8 A.D.3d 549 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Scher v. Stropoli
7 A.D.3d 777 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Montalbano v. Edwards Super Food Stores
6 A.D.3d 587 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Corrado v. City of New York
6 A.D.3d 380 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
309 A.D.2d 914, 766 N.Y.S.2d 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-bb-industries-inc-nyappdiv-2003.