From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Macancela v. Pekurar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 6, 2001
286 A.D.2d 320 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted June 20, 2001.

August 6, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Sofia Pekurar appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated October 11, 2000, which denied her motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21(e) to vacate the plaintiffs' note of issue and dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failure to comply with a conditional order of dismissal of the same court, dated March 2, 2000.

Henry R. Simon, White Plains, N.Y. (Linda Trummer-Napolitano of counsel), for appellant.

Mirman, Markovits Landau, New York, N.Y. (Ephrem Wertenteil of counsel), for respondents.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, NANCY E. SMITH, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the note of issue is vacated, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiffs' certificate of readiness incorrectly stated that all pretrial discovery had been completed. Because this was a misstatement of a material fact, the filing of the note of issue was a nullity, and should have been vacated (see, 22 NYCRR 202.21 [e]; Garofalo v. Mercy Hosp., 271 A.D.2d 642; Spilky v. TRW, Inc., 225 A.D.2d 539).

In addition, as a consequence of the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a conditional order of dismissal, that order became absolute. To be relieved from the adverse impact of the order of dismissal, the plaintiffs had to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to comply with the discovery demands, and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see, Liotti v. Ruk, A.D.2d [2d Dept., Apr. 30, 2001]; Kepple v. Hill Assocs., 275 A.D.2d 299). The plaintiffs did not meet this burden, and therefore, the complaint should have been dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant.

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, McGINITY, SMITH and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Macancela v. Pekurar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 6, 2001
286 A.D.2d 320 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Macancela v. Pekurar

Case Details

Full title:XAVIER MACANCELA, ETC., ET AL., respondents, v. GEORGE PEKURAR, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Aug 6, 2001

Citations

286 A.D.2d 320 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
728 N.Y.S.2d 700

Citing Cases

Victor Assoc. v. Bd. of Assessment Review

An audit requested pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.59 (c) is a "privilege," and respondents' failure to complete the…

Simon v. City of Syracuse Police Department

Under the circumstances, including the patent untruth of plaintiff's certification that discovery had been…