From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brandes v. Pirnie-Baker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 26, 2001
288 A.D.2d 413 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

2001-05769

Submitted October 18, 2001.

November 26, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant, Fischbach Moore, Inc., appeals (1), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated April 10, 2001, as granted the respective motions of the plaintiffs and the defendant third-party plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike its answer, and (2) from an order of the same court, dated May 22, 2001, which denied its motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, which was, in effect, for leave to reargue.

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman Dicker, LLP, New York, N Y (Vito M. DeStefano; Michael Bouhlosa, and Charles Arnold of counsel), for third-party defendant-appellant.

Bradley A. Sacks, New York, N.Y., for plaintiffs-respondents.

Malapero Prisco, New York, N.Y. (Mark A. Bethmann of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated May 22, 2001, is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated April 10, 2001, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Dismissal of a party's pleading pursuant to CPLR 3126 is within the discretion of the Supreme Court where, as here, the party's repeated failure to comply with orders of the court directing disclosure, without excuse, supports an inference that the failure to provide disclosure was willful and contumacious (see, Ranfort v. Peak Tours, 250 A.D.2d 747; Frias v. Fortini, 240 A.D.2d 467; Kubacka v. Town of North Hempstead, 240 A.D.2d 374).

The appellant's motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue was, in effect, in fact a motion only for leave to reargue (see, Polanco v. Duran, 278 A.D.2d 397, 398; Desola v. Mads, 213 A.D.2d 445), the denial of which is not appealable (see, Polanco v. Duran, supra).

ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Brandes v. Pirnie-Baker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 26, 2001
288 A.D.2d 413 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Brandes v. Pirnie-Baker

Case Details

Full title:WAYNE BRANDES, ET AL., plaintiffs-respondents, v. PIRNIE-BAKER, J.V., ET…

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

Date published: Nov 26, 2001

Citations

288 A.D.2d 413 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
733 N.Y.S.2d 905

Citing Cases

Tedesco v. A.P. Green Indus

Appellant abandoned its argument that the third-party complaint must be dismissed for Insulation…

Pryzant v. City of New York

To invoke the drastic remedy of preclusion, the Supreme Court must determine that the offending party's lack…