Muboyayi v. Quintero
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 136 A.D.3d 497,24 N.Y.S.3d 642 |
| Parties | Dieudonne MUBOYAYI, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Monica QUINTERO, et al., Defendants–Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 11 February 2016 |
136 A.D.3d 497
24 N.Y.S.3d 642
Dieudonne MUBOYAYI, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
Monica QUINTERO, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb. 11, 2016.
Law Offices of William Pager, Brooklyn (William Pager of counsel), for appellant.
Freehill Hogan & Mahar LLP, New York (Justin T. Nastro of counsel), for respondents.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., ACOSTA, ANDRIAS, SAXE, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laura Douglas, J.), entered August 1,
2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion to strike the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 to the extent of striking the complaint unless plaintiff appeared for completion of his deposition by August 29, 2014, and order, same court (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered November 7, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion to strike the complaint due to plaintiff's failure to comply with the August 1, 2014 order, and dismissed the action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
After plaintiff failed to comply with a court order mandating that his deposition be completed on March 20, 2014, and failed to provide a reasonable excuse for this failure, the court providently exercised its discretion in issuing the conditional order of preclusion (see Fish & Richardson, P.C. v. Schindler, 75 A.D.3d 219, 220, 901 N.Y.S.2d 598 [1st Dept.2010] ; Casas v. Romanelli, 232 A.D.2d 445, 648 N.Y.S.2d 332 [2d Dept.1996] ).
Although defendant's counsel promptly requested that plaintiff's counsel identify the dates on which plaintiff would be available to complete his deposition on or before the August 29 deadline set by the conditional order, plaintiff's counsel failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Maus, 522141
...at the hearing, without prior notice, deprives the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to be respond" (People v. Segura, 136 A.D.3d at 497, 26 N.Y.S.3d 7; see People v. Hackett, 89 A.D.3d at 1480, 933 N.Y.S.2d 470 ). Here, the Board did not assess any points for a continuing course of sex......
-
People v. Jenkins
..."eviscerate" an agreement not to appeal a conviction and rely on the Court's inherent discretionary powers to reduce the sentence. 24 N.Y.S.3d 642 Indeed, such a result would render a valid waiver of appeal meaningless and would be detrimental to the goals of "fairness and finality in crimi......
-
People v. Montufar-Tez, 2019–06803
...a meaningful opportunity to respond to the assessment (see People v. Chrisley, 172 A.D.3d at 1915, 99 N.Y.S.3d 569 ; People v. Segura, 136 A.D.3d at 497, 26 N.Y.S.3d 7 ; see also People v. Manougian, 132 A.D.3d 746, 747, 17 N.Y.S.3d 507 ). Accordingly, we reverse the order, and remit the ma......
-
People v. Griest
...which included no assignment of points for that risk factor. Accordingly, defendant was denied due process (see People v. Segura, 136 A.D.3d at 497, 26 N.Y.S.3d 7; People v. Hackett, 89 A.D.3d at 1480, 933 N.Y.S.2d 470 ). Considering 40 N.Y.S.3d 578the fact that defendant was never aware of......
-
People v. Maus, 522141
...at the hearing, without prior notice, deprives the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to be respond" (People v. Segura, 136 A.D.3d at 497, 26 N.Y.S.3d 7; see People v. Hackett, 89 A.D.3d at 1480, 933 N.Y.S.2d 470 ). Here, the Board did not assess any points for a continuing course of sex......
-
People v. Jenkins
..."eviscerate" an agreement not to appeal a conviction and rely on the Court's inherent discretionary powers to reduce the sentence. 24 N.Y.S.3d 642 Indeed, such a result would render a valid waiver of appeal meaningless and would be detrimental to the goals of "fairness and finality in crimi......
-
People v. Montufar-Tez, 2019–06803
...a meaningful opportunity to respond to the assessment (see People v. Chrisley, 172 A.D.3d at 1915, 99 N.Y.S.3d 569 ; People v. Segura, 136 A.D.3d at 497, 26 N.Y.S.3d 7 ; see also People v. Manougian, 132 A.D.3d 746, 747, 17 N.Y.S.3d 507 ). Accordingly, we reverse the order, and remit the ma......
-
People v. Griest
...which included no assignment of points for that risk factor. Accordingly, defendant was denied due process (see People v. Segura, 136 A.D.3d at 497, 26 N.Y.S.3d 7; People v. Hackett, 89 A.D.3d at 1480, 933 N.Y.S.2d 470 ). Considering 40 N.Y.S.3d 578the fact that defendant was never aware of......