Reitte v. Entermy Cab Corp.
| Decision Date | 19 June 1990 |
| Citation | 162 A.D.2d 259,556 N.Y.S.2d 617 |
| Parties | Godfrey REITTE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ENTERMY CAB CORP. et al., Defendants-Appellants. ENTERMY CAB CORP., Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GALA TAXI SERVICE CORP., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
P.S. Schlesinger, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.
E.P. Dunphy, New York City, for defendants-appellants and third-party plaintiff-appellant.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and MILONAS, SMITH and RUBIN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hansel McGee, J.), entered on or about June 2, 1989, granting plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's answer and setting the matter down for an inquest on damages, unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
That the defendant has disappeared or made himself unavailable provides no basis for denying a motion to strike his answer, particularly in the face of continued defaults and requests for appearance for examinations before trial. (Moriates v. Powertest Petroleum Co., 114 A.D.2d 888, 495 N.Y.S.2d 62; Foti v. Suero, 97 A.D.2d 748, 468 N.Y.S.2d 170.)
In this instance, the defendant was ordered to produce for deposition its principal, Michael Starbuck. After failing to produce him at the court-ordered deposition, a conditional order was entered providing for the imposition of sanctions should the witness not be produced. The witness once again failed to appear. In light of these repeated failures and the admission that, in fact, defense counsel had no contact with the witness after answering, there was ample support for the court to strike the answer and set the matter down for a hearing on the issue of damages.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Rosa
-
Amico v. Pepe
...to strike the answer where there have been repeated defaults in appearances for examinations before trial (see, Reitte v. Entermy Cab Corp., 162 A.D.2d 259, 556 N.Y.S.2d 617; Moriates v. Powertest Petroleum Co., 114 A.D.2d 888, 889, 495 N.Y.S.2d 62; Foti v. Suero, 97 A.D.2d 748, 468 N.Y.S.2......
-
Flores v. Bueno
...214 A.D.2d 438, 625 N.Y.S.2d 43; Collins v. Hayden on the Hudson Condominium, 197 A.D.2d 482, 602 N.Y.S.2d 867; Reitte v. Entermy Cab Corp., 162 A.D.2d 259, 556 N.Y.S.2d 617). ...
-
Rocco v. Advantage Sec. & Prot. Inc.
...v Beirne, 188 A.D.2d 330). The fact that said defendant's whereabouts are currently unknown is no bar to such a remedy (Reitte v Entermy Cab Corp., 162 A.D.2d 259). Montalvo's employer, defendant Advantage, was guilty of the same pattern of willful and contumacious conduct in failing to pro......