Santee v. Bort

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santee v. Bort

254 A.D.2d 756, 677 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10453

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 756 (Santee v. Bort) 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

Santee v. Bort, 254 A.D.2d 756, 677 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of Robert Draper, individually and doing business as Charlie’s Tavern (defendant), to dismiss the complaint against him unconditionally pursuant to CPLR 3216. Plaintiffs presented proof that their failure to respond to defendant’s 90-day demand in a timely manner resulted from their change of attorneys after the demand was served and not from an intention to abandon the action (see, General Ace. Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v North Am. Sys., 216 AD2d 725, 726). Plaintiffs also made a sufficient showing that they have “a good and meritorious cause of action” against defendant (CPLR 3216 [e]). Under the circumstances, the court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the action to proceed on condition that plaintiffs pay $1,000 to defendant’s counsel (see, Lichter v State of New York, 198 AD2d 687, 688; see also, Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499, 505). Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that the amount of the sanction is “substantial enough to serve as a deterrent to dilatory behavior in the future” (Lichter v State of New York, supra, at 688). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Major, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of Robert Draper, individually and doing business as Charlie’s Tavern (defendant), to dismiss the complaint against him unconditionally pursuant to CPLR 3216. Plaintiffs presented proof that their failure to respond to defendant’s 90-day demand in a timely manner resulted from their change of attorneys after the demand was served and not from an intention to abandon the action (see, General Ace. Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v North Am. Sys., 216 AD2d 725, 726). Plaintiffs also made a sufficient showing that they have “a good and meritorious cause of action” against defendant (CPLR 3216 [e]). Under the circumstances, the court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the action to proceed on condition that plaintiffs pay $1,000 to defendant’s counsel (see, Lichter v State of New York, 198 AD2d 687, 688; see also, Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499, 505). Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that the amount of the sanction is “substantial enough to serve as a deterrent to dilatory behavior in the future” (Lichter v State of New York, supra, at 688). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Major, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 756, 677 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santee-v-bort-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack