Video-Cinema Films, Inc. v. Seaboard Surety Co.

237 A.D.2d 135, 655 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2365
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 11, 1997·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered December 7, 1995, insofar as appealed from, dismissing the complaint as against defendants-respondents, and bringing up for review an order which granted defendants-respondents’ motions for summary judgment based on plaintiffs failure to comply with a conditional preclusion order, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiffs consistent failure to comply with outstanding orders, especially his failure to comply with a conditional preclusion order from which an appeal was never perfected, warrants the drastic relief of dismissal in the absence of a reasonable excuse for the failure to comply (see, Becerril v Skate [136]*136Way Roller Rink, 184 AD2d 365; Mann v Dachel, 210 AD2d 461). We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Video-Cinema Films, Inc. v. Seaboard Surety Co., 237 A.D.2d 135, 655 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2365 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

237 A.D.2d 135 (Video-Cinema Films, Inc. v. Seaboard Surety Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tejeda v. 750 Gerard Properties Corp.
272 A.D.2d 124 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Video-Cinema Films, Inc. v. Migdal
249 A.D.2d 73 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
VSP Associates v. 46 Estates Corp.
243 A.D.2d 373 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)