From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Graham v. Harco Chemical Coating

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 15, 2003
2 A.D.3d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2003-00613.

Decided December 15, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Harco Chemical Coating, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bonina, J.), entered December 23, 2002, which granted the plaintiffs' motion to reinstate the action against it upon vacating the plaintiffs' default in complying with discovery.

Morgan, Melhuish, Monaghan, Arvidson, Abrutyn Lisowski, New York, N.Y. (Joseph W. Sands of counsel), for appellant.

Dankner Milstein, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Edward A. Ruffo of counsel), for respondents.

Before: GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The plaintiffs failed to provide any reason for their default in complying with the appellant's discovery demands ( see Desena v. 486 Henry Supermarket, 269 A.D.2d 557). Further, their affidavit of merit consisted of conclusory assertions unsupported by statements of fact and therefore was inadequate ( see Yushavayev v. Kopelman, 307 A.D.2d 996).

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions either are without merit or not properly before this court.

ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, GOLDSTEIN and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Graham v. Harco Chemical Coating

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 15, 2003
2 A.D.3d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Graham v. Harco Chemical Coating

Case Details

Full title:BARRINGTON GRAHAM, ET AL., respondents, v. HARCO CHEMICAL COATING, INC.…

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

Date published: Dec 15, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
768 N.Y.S.2d 364