Smith v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. City of New York

250 A.D.2d 393, 672 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5330

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

DecidedMay 7, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 393 (Smith v. City of New York) 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

Smith v. City of New York, 250 A.D.2d 393, 672 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5330 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered on or about February 20, 1997, which denied appellants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 2004 for an extension of time to respond to a prior order of discovery, treated as a motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying appellants’ motion, however termed, since their failure to comply with three orders of discovery, which expressly warned of the consequences of non-compliance, or to respond to plaintiffs motion for a default judgment, evinced a willful neglect of, or, at best, a lack of concerned attention to the proceedings {see, Martinez v Belanger, 186 AD2d 40, affd 82 NY2d 672). Further, we note the absence of an affidavit of merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered on or about February 20, 1997, which denied appellants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 2004 for an extension of time to respond to a prior order of discovery, treated as a motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying appellants’ motion, however termed, since their failure to comply with three orders of discovery, which expressly warned of the consequences of non-compliance, or to respond to plaintiffs motion for a default judgment, evinced a willful neglect of, or, at best, a lack of concerned attention to the proceedings {see, Martinez v Belanger, 186 AD2d 40, affd 82 NY2d 672). Further, we note the absence of an affidavit of merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 393, 672 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack