From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barriga v. Sapo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 26, 1998
250 A.D.2d 795 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

May 26, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the appellant's motion is granted, and, upon searching the record (CPLR 3212 [b]), the separate motion by the defendants Anna Sapo and German Shapiro for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

By order dated March 5, 1997, the Supreme Court granted a 60-day conditional order precluding the plaintiffs from offering any evidence at trial as to damages unless they provided responses to the defendants' discovery demands. When the plaintiffs failed to timely respond, the defendants Freddy Barriga and Maria Flores and the defendants Anna Sapo and German Shapiro separately moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Since the plaintiffs did not timely serve responses to the defendants' discovery demands, the conditional order of preclusion became absolute ( see, DiPietro v. Duhl, 227 A.D.2d 515; Bock v. Schiowitz, 168 A.D.2d 593). In order to be relieved of their default, the plaintiffs needed to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for their failure to respond as well as a meritorious cause of action ( see, DiPietro v. Duhl, supra; Murdock v. Center for Special Surgery, 199 A.D.2d 482). Having failed to do so, the plaintiffs were precluded from proving an essential element of their case. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' respective motions for summary judgment ( see, DiPietro v. Duhl, supra; Bock v. Schiowitz, supra).

Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Barriga v. Sapo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 26, 1998
250 A.D.2d 795 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Barriga v. Sapo

Case Details

Full title:DORA BARRIGA, Individually and as Mother and Natural Guardian of DAVID…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 26, 1998

Citations

250 A.D.2d 795 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
673 N.Y.S.2d 211

Citing Cases

Ramlall v. JW Mays, Inc.

Plaintiff appeals from both orders. When plaintiff failed to timely comply with the conditional order of…

Williams v. New Style Limousine, Inc.

To add insult to injury, after flaunting four Court orders, defendant Masih was "convinced" to appear for the…