Santiago v. City of New York

71 A.D.3d 468, 894 N.Y.S.2d 873
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 9, 2010·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered on or about March 6, 2009, which granted defendants-respondents’ [469]*469motions pursuant to CPLR 3126 dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed for persistent, unexplained noncompliance with four disclosure orders, including a self-executing conditional order of dismissal that was granted on default and became absolute (see AWL Indus., Inc. v QBE Ins. Corp., 65 AD3d 904 [2009]; Min Yoon v Costello, 29 AD3d 407 [2006]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Nardelli and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Santiago v. City of New York, 71 A.D.3d 468, 894 N.Y.S.2d 873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

71 A.D.3d 468 (Santiago v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McKanic v. Amigos del Museo del Barrio
74 A.D.3d 639 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)