Tellas v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tellas v. City of New York

256 A.D.2d 403, 681 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13416

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 403 (Tellas 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

Tellas v. City of New York, 256 A.D.2d 403, 681 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13416 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant City of New York appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated September 29, 1997, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike its answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record amply demonstrates that the appellant has engaged in willful and contumacious conduct intended to thwart the plaintiffs right to meaningful pretrial discovery. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion to strike the appellant’s answer (see, Fappiano v City of New York, 241 AD2d 509; Kubacka v Town of N. Hempstead, 240 AD2d 374; Herrera v City of New York, 238 AD2d 475; Cauley v Long Is. R. R. Co., 234 AD2d 252). Miller, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant City of New York appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated September 29, 1997, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike its answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record amply demonstrates that the appellant has engaged in willful and contumacious conduct intended to thwart the plaintiffs right to meaningful pretrial discovery. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion to strike the appellant’s answer (see, Fappiano v City of New York, 241 AD2d 509; Kubacka v Town of N. Hempstead, 240 AD2d 374; Herrera v City of New York, 238 AD2d 475; Cauley v Long Is. R. R. Co., 234 AD2d 252). Miller, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 403, 681 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tellas-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack