U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Gadson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Gadson

2020 NY Slip Op 1662

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2020

Docket2017-05182

StatusPublished

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 1662 (U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Gadson) 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

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Gadson, 2020 NY Slip Op 1662 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

U.S. Bank, N.A. v Gadson (2020 NY Slip Op 01662)

U.S. Bank, N.A. v Gadson

2020 NY Slip Op 01662

Decided on March 11, 2020

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on March 11, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
ROBERT J. MILLER
LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

2017-05182
(Index No. 18626/08)

[*1]U.S. Bank, National Association, etc., respondent,

v

Sandra Gadson, et al., defendants, Michael Knott, defendant-appellant; Dave Knott, nonparty-appellant.

Michael Knott, Springfield Gardens, NY, defendant-appellant pro se, and Dave Knott, Springfield Gardens, NY, nonparty-appellant pro se (one brief filed).

Sandelands Eyet LLP, New York, NY (Mindy Kallus of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Michael Knott and nonparty Dave Knott appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chereé A. Buggs, J.), entered December 20, 2016. The order denied the motion of the defendant Michael Knott and nonparty Dave Knott pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel discovery.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Where, as here, a defendant defaults in answering the complaint, he or she forfeits the right to engage in discovery (see US Bank N.A. v Williams, 153 AD3d 650; Santiago v Siega, 255 AD2d 307, 307-308). Accordingly, since the defendant Michael Knott defaulted in answering the complaint, and Dave Knott is not a party to the action, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination denying their motion to compel the plaintiff to comply with Michael Knott's discovery demands.

CHAMBERS, J.P., AUSTIN, MILLER and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

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