Santiago v. Broome Street Parking Lot

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santiago v. Broome Street Parking Lot

247 A.D.2d 338, 669 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1825

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 338 (Santiago v. Broome Street Parking Lot) 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

Santiago v. Broome Street Parking Lot, 247 A.D.2d 338, 669 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1825 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about May 21, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, sua sponte transferred this action to the Civil Court pursuant to CPLR 325 (d), unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to vacate the transfer, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered September 3, 1997, which, insofar as appealable, denied plaintiffs motion to strike defendants’ answers for noncompliance with disclosure obligations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The transfer to Civil Court was an abuse of discretion in view of the seriousness of the injuries alleged and the absence of “the slightest suggestion that the damages sustained may be less than those demanded” (American Home Assur. Co. v Rhulen Agency, 147 AD2d 413). Contrary to the court’s statement, liability considerations are not a basis for such removal. [339]*339Plaintiffs motion to strike defendants’ answers was properly denied since it does not clearly appear that the failure to disclose was willful or contumacious (see, Frye v City of New York, 228 AD2d 182). We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Rubin, and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about May 21, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, sua sponte transferred this action to the Civil Court pursuant to CPLR 325 (d), unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to vacate the transfer, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered September 3, 1997, which, insofar as appealable, denied plaintiffs motion to strike defendants’ answers for noncompliance with disclosure obligations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The transfer to Civil Court was an abuse of discretion in view of the seriousness of the injuries alleged and the absence of “the slightest suggestion that the damages sustained may be less than those demanded” (American Home Assur. Co. v Rhulen Agency, 147 AD2d 413). Contrary to the court’s statement, liability considerations are not a basis for such removal. [339]*339Plaintiffs motion to strike defendants’ answers was properly denied since it does not clearly appear that the failure to disclose was willful or contumacious (see, Frye v City of New York, 228 AD2d 182). We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Rubin, and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 338, 669 N.Y.S.2d 208, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santiago-v-broome-street-parking-lot-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack