From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sosa v. Tudor Place Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 2, 2008
55 A.D.3d 311 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

October 2, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Allison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered August 27, 2007, which, to the extent appealable, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiff's motion to renew earlier orders of preclusion, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 24, 2007, which, to the extent appealable, can be construed as denying plaintiffs motion to renew the August 27 order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Lippman, P.J., Gonzalez, Nardelli, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.


Dismissal of the complaint is appropriate where a plaintiff repeatedly and willfully disobeys court orders for discovery ( see Jones v Green, 34 AD3d 260). Since plaintiff herein repeatedly failed to schedule or appear for a medical examination, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the court to preclude medical testimony and dismiss the complaint. Without this evidence, plaintiff is unable to establish damages at trial.


Summaries of

Sosa v. Tudor Place Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 2, 2008
55 A.D.3d 311 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Sosa v. Tudor Place Associates

Case Details

Full title:MARQUETIS CASTILLO SOSA, Appellant, v. TUDOR PLACE ASSOCLATES, LIMITED…

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

Date published: Oct 2, 2008

Citations

55 A.D.3d 311 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
865 N.Y.S.2d 57

Citing Cases

Murray v. Sehgal

DISCUSSIONCPLR § 3124 allows a party to compel disclosure when a person has failed to comply with a request,…