Encarnacion v. Monier
| Decision Date | 22 February 2011 |
| Parties | Carmen ENCARNACION, plaintiff, v. Philip MONIER, et al., defendants. (Action No. 1) Carmen Encarnacion, respondent, v. Ballancs Restim, appellant. (Action No. 2) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Bergman, Bergman, Goldberg & Lamonsoff, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Allen Goldberg of counsel), for respondent.
In two related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, which were joined for trial, the defendant in Action No. 2 appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (McMahon, J.), dated July 14, 2009, as, in effect, granted that branch of his motion which was to vacate the note of issue filed in Action No. 2 only to the extent of directing the plaintiff to provide all outstanding discovery by a date certain.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to vacate the note of issue, since it directed the plaintiff to produce all outstanding discovery by a date certain ( see Rampersant v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 71 A.D.3d 972, 973, 898 N.Y.S.2d 567; Joseph v. Propst, 306 A.D.2d 246, 760 N.Y.S.2d 359; see also Ronel-Bennett, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 149 A.D.2d 678, 678-679, 540 N.Y.S.2d 701).
The parties' remaining contentions either refer to matter dehors the record or are not properly before this Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc.
...timely comply with court orders and discovery 116 N.Y.S.3d 73 demands, denial of a motion to vacate is proper (see Encarnacion v. Monier, 81 A.D.3d 875, 917 N.Y.S.2d 875 ; Rampersant v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 71 A.D.3d 972, 973, 898 N.Y.S.2d 567 ; Savin v. Brooklyn Mar. Park Dev. Co......
-
Eldoh v. Astoria Generating Co., L.P.
...as a matter of law pursuant to Labor Law § 200 also serves as a demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing a81 A.D.3d 875common-law negligence cause of action. " The determinative factor on the issue of control is not whether a [defendant] furnishes equipment but......
-
Jablonsky v. Nerlich
...denial of a motion to vacate is proper" ( Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc., 178 A.D.3d 1003, 1003, 116 N.Y.S.3d 70 ; see Encarnacion v. Monier, 81 A.D.3d 875, 875, 917 N.Y.S.2d 875 ).Here, the record reflects that the defendants had ample opportunity to engage in discovery, including the opportun......
-
In re Deshawn D.O.
...respondent,Maria T.O. (Anonymous), et al., appellants.Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.Feb. 22, 2011.917 N.Y.S.2d 875 and Elina Druker of counsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and John A. Newbery of counsel), attorney for th......