From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Santiago v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 9, 2010
71 A.D.3d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2317.

March 9, 2010.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered on or about March 6, 2009, which granted defendants-respondents' motions pursuant to CPLR 3126 dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Mallilo Grossman, Flushing (Francesco Pomara, Jr. of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Stephen J. McGrath of counsel), for City of New York, respondent.

Molod Spitz DeSantis, P.C., New York (Marcy Sonneborn of counsel), for Milea Truck Sales Corp. and M.T.S. Realty Corp., respondents.

Law Offices of Peter D. Assail, LLC, New York (Peter D. Assail of counsel), for Cibao Meat Products Inc., respondent.

Law Office of James J. Toomey, New York (Evy L. Kazansky of counsel), for 38-40 Food Corp., respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Nardelli and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.


The complaint was properly dismissed for persistent, unexplained noncompliance with four disclosure orders, including a self-executing conditional order of dismissal that was granted on default and became absolute ( see AWL Indus., Inc. v QBE Ins. Corp., 65 AD3d 904; Min Yoon v Costello, 29 AD3d 407).


Summaries of

Santiago v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 9, 2010
71 A.D.3d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Santiago v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:CARLOS SANTIAGO, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents, et…

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

Date published: Mar 9, 2010

Citations

71 A.D.3d 468 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 1847
894 N.Y.S.2d 873

Citing Cases

Milton v. Eagle

Inasmuch as the directives set forth in this court's February 25, 2022 conditional order were explicitly…

Janulyn McKanic v. Amigos Del

Defendant also demonstrated that it had no interest in plaintiffs tax returns other than to verify her salary…