Russo v. Rockford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Russo v. Rockford

89 A.D.2d 892, 453 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18067

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

DecidedAugust 16, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 A.D.2d 892 (Russo v. Rockford) 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

Russo v. Rockford, 89 A.D.2d 892, 453 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18067 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from an order of the. Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated February 22, 1982, which denied their motion to vacate a prior order of the same court, dated November 2, 1981, which had granted a motion by the plaintiffs to strike defendants’ answer and set the matter down for an assessment of damages, by reason of defendants’ failure to comply with court orders in discovery proceedings. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The excuses proffered by defendants for their failure to comply with the court ordered discovery proceedings all fall within the ambit of law office failure and such excuses, as a matter of law, may not serve as a basis for excusing defaults (Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594; cf. Eaton v Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., 56 NY2d 900; Swidler v World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., 85 AD2d 239). Accordingly, we affirm the order appealed from. Mollen, P. J., Niehoff, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from an order of the. Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated February 22, 1982, which denied their motion to vacate a prior order of the same court, dated November 2, 1981, which had granted a motion by the plaintiffs to strike defendants’ answer and set the matter down for an assessment of damages, by reason of defendants’ failure to comply with court orders in discovery proceedings. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The excuses proffered by defendants for their failure to comply with the court ordered discovery proceedings all fall within the ambit of law office failure and such excuses, as a matter of law, may not serve as a basis for excusing defaults (Barasch v Micucci, 49 NY2d 594; cf. Eaton v Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., 56 NY2d 900; Swidler v World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., 85 AD2d 239). Accordingly, we affirm the order appealed from. Mollen, P. J., Niehoff, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.2d 892, 453 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russo-v-rockford-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack