From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hall v. Penas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 2004
5 A.D.3d 549 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-06530.

Decided March 15, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated July 9, 2003, as denied that branch of her motion which was to strike the defendant's answer for failure to comply with a conditional order dated March 28, 2002, and granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was to compel her to provide certain medical authorizations.

Stuart H. Finkelstein, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant.

Robert P. Tusa (Sweetbaum Sweetbaum, Lake Success, N.Y. [Marshall D. Sweetbaum] of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to strike the answer is granted, and that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was to compel her to provide certain medical authorizations is denied.

As a result of the defendant's failure to appear for her deposition on or before May 2, 2003, the conditional order dated March 28, 2002, became absolute ( see Marrone v. Orson Holding Corp., 302 A.D.2d 371; Stewart v. City of New York, 266 A.D.2d 452). To be relieved of the adverse impact of the conditional order, the defendant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her failure to appear at the deposition and the existence of a meritorious defense ( see Marrone v. Orson Holding Corp., supra; Macancela v. Pekurar, 286 A.D.2d 320). The defendant did neither.

In addition, since the defendant's answer is now stricken, she is not entitled to any further discovery ( see Minicozzi v. Gerbino, 301 A.D.2d 580; Santiago v. Siega, 255 A.D.2d 307).

ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hall v. Penas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 2004
5 A.D.3d 549 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Hall v. Penas

Case Details

Full title:LAUREN HALL, appellant, v. JOSEFA PENAS, respondent

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

Date published: Mar 15, 2004

Citations

5 A.D.3d 549 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
772 N.Y.S.2d 835

Citing Cases

Brasil-Puello v. Weisman

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's…

Tadco Constr. Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Additionally, defendant asserts that there is no separate tort for bad faith refusal to comply with an…