Vega v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vega v. City of New York

261 A.D.2d 235, 687 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5507

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

DecidedMay 18, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 235 (Vega 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

Vega v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d 235, 687 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5507 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered March 12, 1998, which, in an action for false arrest and assault allegedly committed by defendant City’s police officers, granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant’s answer for failure to comply with its disclosure obligations, and denied defendant’s cross-motion for an extension of time to comply with its disclosure obligations, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, plaintiffs’ motion denied, defendants’ answer reinstated and the cross-motion granted.

The unfortunate sudden death of the young law student who assisted in the day-to-day handling of this case for the City resulted in a great deal of confusion over the status of his cases. That confusion accounted for the failure of the City to produce the requested documents five days prior to the deposition scheduled for January 12, 1998, as directed by the court. The City has therefore offered a reasonable excuse for its failure to comply with the prior order of the Supreme Court. Additionally, the failure to comply was neither willful nor contumacious.

Accordingly, the penalty of striking the City’s answer is too severe and the City should have been given a brief additional period of time in which to comply with the discovery order. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Saxe and Buckley, 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 March 12, 1998, which, in an action for false arrest and assault allegedly committed by defendant City’s police officers, granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant’s answer for failure to comply with its disclosure obligations, and denied defendant’s cross-motion for an extension of time to comply with its disclosure obligations, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, plaintiffs’ motion denied, defendants’ answer reinstated and the cross-motion granted.

The unfortunate sudden death of the young law student who assisted in the day-to-day handling of this case for the City resulted in a great deal of confusion over the status of his cases. That confusion accounted for the failure of the City to produce the requested documents five days prior to the deposition scheduled for January 12, 1998, as directed by the court. The City has therefore offered a reasonable excuse for its failure to comply with the prior order of the Supreme Court. Additionally, the failure to comply was neither willful nor contumacious.

Accordingly, the penalty of striking the City’s answer is too severe and the City should have been given a brief additional period of time in which to comply with the discovery order. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 235, 687 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vega-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.