From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bents v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 5, 1999
257 A.D.2d 372 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

January 5, 1999.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.).


The motion court properly declined to enforce the conditional orders striking defendants', City and Police Department, answer unless they provided certain disclosure and placing defendant police officers in default unless they appeared by a certain date. In large part, the City's lack of compliance was attributable to plaintiff's failure to provide information identifying the police officers involved in his arrest, which circumstance also justified the granting of the City's cross motion to compel plaintiff to execute authorizations for the release of his criminal record and to accept the City's amended answer on behalf of the one officer it was able to identify and locate. Withholding of a default judgment against the other two officers is an appropriate exercise of discretion until such time as plaintiff provides information sufficient to identify them. We have considered plaintiff's other claims and find them to be unpersuasive.

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Bents v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 5, 1999
257 A.D.2d 372 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Bents v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL BENTS, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 5, 1999

Citations

257 A.D.2d 372 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
683 N.Y.S.2d 48

Citing Cases

Rubeo v. National Grange Mutual Insurance Co.

However, even if the Appellate Division has, on occasion, exercised its discretion to hear a subsequent…