Gonzalez v. L'Oreal USA, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 February 2012 |
| Citation | 92 A.D.3d 1158,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01391,940 N.Y.S.2d 328 |
| Parties | Peter GONZALEZ et al., Appellants, v. L'OREAL USA, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01391
92 A.D.3d 1158
940 N.Y.S.2d 328
Peter GONZALEZ et al., Appellants,
v.
L'OREAL USA, INC., Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Feb. 23, 2012.
[940 N.Y.S.2d 329]
Peter Gonzalez and Francesca Gonzalez, Troy, appellants pro se.
Carter, Conboy, Case, Blackmore, Maloney & Laird, P.C., Albany (Michael J. Murphy of counsel), for respondent.
Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., SPAIN, STEIN, GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ.
EGAN JR., J.
[92 A.D.3d 1158] Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (O'Connor, J.), entered August 5, 2010 in Schoharie County, which, among other things, denied plaintiffs' motion for a change of venue, and (2) from an order of said court, entered November 15, 2010 in Schoharie County, which, among other things, denied plaintiffs' motion to disqualify the assigned Acting Supreme Court Justice.
[92 A.D.3d 1159] In December 2006, plaintiffs commenced this products liability action in Schoharie County—where they resided—seeking to recover for injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff Francesca Gonzalez while coloring her hair utilizing a product purportedly manufactured by defendant. In October 2008, Supreme Court (Devine, J.) ordered plaintiffs to accept service of defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint and, in February 2009, Supreme Court partially granted that motion, leaving only plaintiffs' breach of warranty claim intact. Plaintiffs did not appeal from either of those orders. Justice Devine subsequently recused himself in August 2009, and the matter eventually was reassigned to Supreme Court (O'Connor, J.) in February 2010.
In the interim, plaintiffs brought several motions seeking, insofar as is relevant to these appeals, disqualification of Justice Devine, vacatur of the October 2008 and February 2009 orders and a change of venue from Schoharie County to Rensselaer County. Defendant, in turn, cross-moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint based upon their willful failure to comply with outstanding discovery demands. By
[940 N.Y.S.2d 330]
order entered August 5, 2010, Supreme Court (O'Connor, J.) denied plaintiffs' numerous motions and conditionally granted defendant's cross motion to dismiss the complaint unless plaintiffs complied with the discovery demands within 30 days.1 Plaintiffs thereafter moved to disqualify Justice O'Connor and, by order entered November 15, 2010, their motion was denied. These appeals by plaintiffs ensued.2
We affirm. To the extent that plaintiffs' various recusal/disqualification motions are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kenyon
...lies within the personal conscience of the court, will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion” ( Gonzalez v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 92 A.D.3d 1158, 1159, 940 N.Y.S.2d 328 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv. dismissed19 N.Y.3d 874, 947 N.Y.S.2d 48, 969 N.E.2d 116......
-
State v. Konikov, 528735
...County ( Blaine v. International Bus. Machs. Corp. , 91 A.D.3d 1175, 1175, 937 N.Y.S.2d 405 [2012] ; see Gonzalez v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. , 92 A.D.3d 1158, 1160, 940 N.Y.S.2d 328 [2012], lv dismissed 19 N.Y.3d 874, 947 N.Y.S.2d 48, 969 N.E.2d 1163 [2012] ). Defendant's unsupported and "conclus......
-
Place v. Ciccotelli
...985 N.Y.S.2d 748 [2014]; Matter of Moore v. Palmatier, 115 A.D.3d 1069, 1070, 982 N.Y.S.2d 191 [2014]; Gonzalez v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 92 A.D.3d 1158, 1159, 940 N.Y.S.2d 328 [2012], lv. dismissed 19 N.Y.3d 874, 947 N.Y.S.2d 48, 969 N.E.2d 1163 [2012] ). Turning to the motion to dismiss, we c......
-
Place v. Ciccotelli
...985 N.Y.S.2d 748 [2014] ; Matter of Moore v. Palmatier, 115 A.D.3d 1069, 1070, 982 N.Y.S.2d 191 [2014] ; Gonzalez v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 92 A.D.3d 1158, 1159, 940 N.Y.S.2d 328 [2012], lv. dismissed 19 N.Y.3d 874, 947 N.Y.S.2d 48, 969 N.E.2d 1163 [2012] ). Turning to the motion to dismiss, we......