Strauss v. Vladeck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Strauss v. Vladeck

203 A.D.2d 885, 611 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4366

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Strauss v. Vladeck. Read the opinion of the Court — 173 A.D.2d 1063 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 28, 1994·Published

Opinion

—Appeal (transferred to this Court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Lefkowitz, J.), entered September 4, 1991 in Rockland County, which granted defendants’ motions to, inter alia, dismiss the complaint.

Since the commencement of this malpractice action in February 1987, plaintiff has failed to comply with several of defendants’ discovery demands, even when ordered to do so by Supreme Court. In its last order prior to granting defendants’ renewed motions to dismiss the complaint, Supreme Court warned plaintiff that she would "face the consequences” if she continued to ignore the outstanding orders and demands to engage in meaningful discovery. Given that plaintiff has not offered a reasonable excuse for this conduct, which under these circumstances can be characterized as willful and contu[886]*886macious, we see no reason to disturb Supreme Court’s order dismissing the complaint.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Weiss and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

—Appeal (transferred to this Court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Lefkowitz, J.), entered September 4, 1991 in Rockland County, which granted defendants’ motions to, inter alia, dismiss the complaint.

Since the commencement of this malpractice action in February 1987, plaintiff has failed to comply with several of defendants’ discovery demands, even when ordered to do so by Supreme Court. In its last order prior to granting defendants’ renewed motions to dismiss the complaint, Supreme Court warned plaintiff that she would "face the consequences” if she continued to ignore the outstanding orders and demands to engage in meaningful discovery. Given that plaintiff has not offered a reasonable excuse for this conduct, which under these circumstances can be characterized as willful and contu[886]*886macious, we see no reason to disturb Supreme Court’s order dismissing the complaint.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Weiss and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Strauss v. Vladeck, 203 A.D.2d 885, 611 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4366 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

203 A.D.2d 885 (Strauss v. Vladeck) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.