Torres v. DeCordova

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Torres v. DeCordova

262 A.D.2d 399, 691 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6345

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

DecidedJune 7, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 399 (Torres v. DeCordova) 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

Torres v. DeCordova, 262 A.D.2d 399, 691 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6345 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Sgardo E. Saavedra and Luz Quintero appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated May 27, 1998, which granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to strike their answer unless they provided outstanding discovery and submitted to depositions within 90 days from the date of service of a copy of the order with notice of entry.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The fact that the appellants have disappeared or made themselves unavailable to appear at the depositions provides no basis for denying a motion to strike their answer (see, Torres v Martinez, 250 AD2d 759; Dash v DK Tr., 239 AD2d 313). Santucci, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Schmidt, 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, etc., the defendants Sgardo E. Saavedra and Luz Quintero appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated May 27, 1998, which granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to strike their answer unless they provided outstanding discovery and submitted to depositions within 90 days from the date of service of a copy of the order with notice of entry.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The fact that the appellants have disappeared or made themselves unavailable to appear at the depositions provides no basis for denying a motion to strike their answer (see, Torres v Martinez, 250 AD2d 759; Dash v DK Tr., 239 AD2d 313). Santucci, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 399, 691 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-decordova-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack