Wood v. Tuttle
| Decision Date | 30 May 2013 |
| Parties | Robert J. WOOD, Respondent, v. James A. TUTTLE, et al., Defendants, and Kenneth A. WARREN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
106 A.D.3d 1393
968 N.Y.S.2d 613
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 03886
Robert J. WOOD, Respondent,
v.
James A. TUTTLE, et al., Defendants,
and
Kenneth A. WARREN, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
May 30, 2013.
[968 N.Y.S.2d 614]
Meagher & Meagher, Binghamton (Frederick J. Meagher Jr. of counsel), for appellant.
Scott C. Gottlieb, Binghamton (Matthew C. Hug, Troy, of counsel), for respondent.
Before: LAHTINEN, P.J., McCARTHY, GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ.
LAHTINEN, J.P.
[106 A.D.3d 1393]Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Lebous, J.), entered April 26, 2011 in Broome County, which, upon an inquest, awarded certain damages to plaintiff, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon.
Plaintiff commenced this action in May 2008 alleging that he had suffered serious injuries during an altercation at a bar with defendant James A. Tuttle, who was employed as the bar's bouncer. Defendant Kenneth A. Warren (hereinafter defendant) is the principal of defendant Kando Corporation, which operated the bar, and he was present and allegedly had a role in the incident. After submitting an answer, defendants neglected to supply any responses to plaintiff's discovery demands, including ignoring all the deadlines for discovery set by Supreme Court in an April 2009 order. Faced with defendants' continued nonresponse to discovery demands and noncompliance with the court order, plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. In an order entered October 27, 2009, Supreme Court conditionally granted the motion, giving defendants until November 20, 2009 to respond. Defendants, however, did not respond. Supreme Court thus scheduled an inquest on damages for June 2010. At the hearing, defendant appeared with new counsel and the court afforded him and the other defendants additional time to attempt to resolve the case. Defendants reportedly made no such effort.
In August 2010, defendant moved to set aside the partial summary judgment order
[968 N.Y.S.2d 615]
that had been granted upon default. [106 A.D.3d 1394]Supreme Court denied the request to vacate the order, but granted defendant's request to hear further evidence regarding plaintiff's damages. After hearing such proof, Supreme Court found damages of $15,000 for past pain and suffering, $25,000 for future pain and suffering, $6,276.90 for lost wages and $5,253.55 for medical expenses. Defendant appeals.
Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in not granting his motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ballenger
...63 N.Y.2d at 276–279, 481 N.Y.S.2d 675, 471 N.E.2d 447), or where a police officer is killed while chasing a fleeing suspect ( see e.g. [968 N.Y.S.2d 613]People v. DaCosta, 6 N.Y.3d at 184, 811 N.Y.S.2d 308, 844 N.E.2d 762;People v. Matos, 83 N.Y.2d at 511, 611 N.Y.S.2d 785, 634 N.E.2d 157)......
-
Darrow v. Darrow
...of the extensive travel associated with Hibbard's employment,8 it was in Christian's best interests to award joint legal custody to the [106 A.D.3d 1393]grandmother and Hibbard with primary physical custody to the grandmother ( see Matter of Rodriguez v. DelaCruz–Swan, 100 A.D.3d at 1289, 9......
-
One W. Bank, FSB v. Valdez
...of neglect by her prior counsel did not constitute a reasonable excuse for her delay in answering the complaint (see Wood v. Tuttle, 106 A.D.3d 1393, 1394, 968 N.Y.S.2d 613 ; HSBC Bank USA N.A. v. Wider, 101 A.D.3d 683, 683, 955 N.Y.S.2d 202, 957 N.Y.S.2d 125; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cerv......
-
Rutnik & Corr Cpa's, P.C. v. Guptill Farms, Inc.
...their default and discern no abuse of its discretion in denying defendants' motion to vacate the default judgment (see Wood v. Tuttle, 106 A.D.3d 1393, 1394, 968 N.Y.S.2d 613 [2013] ; Fishman v. Beach, 246 A.D.2d at 780–781, 668 N.Y.S.2d 75 ). Given the lack of a reasonable excuse, we need ......