Bernal v. Singh
| Decision Date | 13 April 2010 |
| Citation | 72 A.D.3d 716,898 N.Y.S.2d 858 |
| Parties | Renato BERNAL, respondent, v. Paraminder SINGH, et al., appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
72 A.D.3d 716
Renato BERNAL, respondent,
v.
Paraminder SINGH, et al., appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
April 13, 2010.
Cheven, Keely & Hatzis, New York, N.Y. (Mayu Miyashita of counsel), for appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), entered July 21, 2009, which granted the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike their
answer and for leave to enter a judgment on the issue of liability upon their failure to appear for examinations before trial, and (2) an order of the same court entered September 4, 2009, which denied their motion for leave to renew and reargue their opposition to the plaintiff's motion.ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order entered September 4, 2009, as denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order entered July 21, 2009, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order entered September 4, 2009, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
It is settled that the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court ( see CPLR 3126[3]; Joseph v. Iannace, 6 A.D.3d 502, 503, 774 N.Y.S.2d 419; Ordonez v. Guerra, 295 A.D.2d 325, 326, 743 N.Y.S.2d 156; Yona v. Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 285 A.D.2d 460, 461, 726 N.Y.S.2d 732). The record herein supports the Supreme Court's determination that the defendants' failure to appear for depositions on June 5, 2009, was willful and contumacious ( see Beneficial Mortg. Corp. v. Lawrence, 5 A.D.3d 339, 340, 772 N.Y.S.2d 713; Rowell v. Joyce, 10 A.D.3d 601, 781 N.Y.S.2d 682). The attorneys for both sides had agreed upon that date at a compliance conference on June 1, 2009, just four days earlier, and the resulting compliance conference order had directed the depositions to proceed on that date starting at 10:00 A.M. in the courthouse.
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.
FISHER, J.P., COVELLO, BALKIN, LEVENTHAL and LOTT, JJ., concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
H.R. Prince, Inc. v. Elite Envtl. Sys., Inc.
...discretion of the trial court ( seeCPLR 3126[3]; Kihl v. Pfeffer, 94 N.Y.2d 118, 122–123, 700 N.Y.S.2d 87, 722 N.E.2d 55;Bernal v. Singh, 72 A.D.3d 716, 717, 898 N.Y.S.2d 858;Pirro Group, LLC v. One Point St., Inc., 71 A.D.3d 654, 655, 896 N.Y.S.2d 152;Greene v. Mullen, 70 A.D.3d 996, 996, ......
-
Morgenstern v. Jeffsam Corp.
...Pfeffer, 94 N.Y.2d 118, 122-123, 700 N.Y.S.2d 87, 722 N.E.2d 55; Umar v. Ohrnberger, 72 A.D.3d 1066, 900 N.Y.S.2d 349; Bernal v. Singh, 72 A.D.3d 716, 898 N.Y.S.2d 858). The dismissal of a complaint for a plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with court-ordered discovery is warranted upon ......
-
Aronov v. Shimonov
...directing him to appear for a deposition, and failed to provide a reasonable excuse to justify those failures ( see Bernal v. Singh, 72 A.D.3d 716, 717, 898 N.Y.S.2d 858;Savin v. Brooklyn Mar. Park Dev. Corp., 61 A.D.3d 954, 954–955, 878 N.Y.S.2d 178;Stinton v. Robin's Wood, Inc., 45 A.D.3d......
-
Wagner v. Ploch
...that the tenant obtain insurance” ( Graphic Arts Supply v. Raynor, 91 A.D.2d 827, 828, 458 N.Y.S.2d 115; see Ben Lee Distribs., Inc., 72 A.D.3d at 716, 899 N.Y.S.2d 301). All concur except CARNI, J., who concurs in the result in the following Memorandum: Although I concur in the result reac......