From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marrone v. Orson Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 4, 2003
302 A.D.2d 371 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-07917

Submitted January 8, 2003.

February 4, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), entered August 27, 2002, which granted the plaintiff's motion to strike their answer pursuant to CPLR 3126(3) for failure to comply with a prior discovery order.

Squires, Cordrey Noble (Carol R. Finocchio, New York, N.Y. [Susan M. Daly] of counsel), for appellants.

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

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

As a result of the defendants' failure to produce a witness for a deposition on or before May 17, 2002, the conditional order dated April 17, 2002, became absolute (see Stewart v. City of New York, 266 A.D.2d 452; Clissuras v. Concord Vil. Owners, 233 A.D.2d 475). To be relieved of the adverse impact of the order of dismissal, the defendants were required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to produce a witness for the deposition and the existence of a meritorious defense (see Macancela v. Pekurar, 286 A.D.2d 320). The defendants failed to satisfy this standard.

FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, FRIEDMANN, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Marrone v. Orson Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 4, 2003
302 A.D.2d 371 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Marrone v. Orson Holding Corp.

Case Details

Full title:ANNE MARRONE, respondent, v. ORSON HOLDING CORP., ET AL., appellants

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

Date published: Feb 4, 2003

Citations

302 A.D.2d 371 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
753 N.Y.S.2d 899

Citing Cases

Zouev v. N.Y

The plaintiff contends that the Supreme Court should have granted his motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) to…

Platovsky v. Bernstein

(Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3126:10). Significantly, a…