From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walker v. Gibbons

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 8, 2016
137 A.D.3d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

Docket No. 19686/2015 Mot. Seq. Nos. 001 MD 002 MG.

03-08-2016

Bruce WALKER, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Arthur GIBBONS, doing business as Gibbons Holding Company, Defendant–Respondent, Back to Jerusalem Pentecostal Mission, et al., Defendants.

Ferro, Kuba, Mangano, Sklyar, P.C., Hauppauge (Kenneth Mangano of counsel), for appellant. Paganini, Cioci, Pinter, Cusumano & Farole, Melville (Jerika Accardy of counsel), for respondent.


Ferro, Kuba, Mangano, Sklyar, P.C., Hauppauge (Kenneth Mangano of counsel), for appellant.

Paganini, Cioci, Pinter, Cusumano & Farole, Melville (Jerika Accardy of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered October 8, 2013, which granted defendant Arthur Gibbons d/b/a Gibbons Holding Company's (Arthur Gibbons) motion and defendants Back to Jerusalem Pentecostal Mission and Lurena Felder Sutton's cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the motion and cross motion denied.

In this action for personal injuries, we are satisfied that plaintiff's failure to file a note of issue within 90 days of defendant Arthur Gibbons's CPLR 3216 demand was largely attributable to defendant's refusal to comply with the notices to take the outstanding deposition of its employee and for an inspection of its premises (see Donegan v. St. Joseph's Med. Ctr., 283 A.D.2d 152, 724 N.Y.S.2d 582 1st Dept.2001 ). Accordingly, defendant Arthur Gibbons's motion to dismiss should have been denied.

Also, defendants Back to Jerusalem Pentecostal Mission and Lurena Felder Sutton's cross motion for dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute should have been denied for the additional reason that they did not serve their own 90–day notice (see Donnell v. Madison Ave.–53rd St. Corp., 214 A.D.2d 307, 624 N.Y.S.2d 427 1st Dept.1995; Juracka v. Ferrara, 137 A.D.2d 921, 923, 524 N.Y.S.2d 885 3d Dept.1988, lv. dismissed 72 N.Y.2d 840, 530 N.Y.S.2d 555, 526 N.E.2d 47 1988; CPLR 3216[b]3 ).

MAZZARELLI, J.P., RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Walker v. Gibbons

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 8, 2016
137 A.D.3d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Walker v. Gibbons

Case Details

Full title:Bruce WALKER, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Arthur GIBBONS, doing business as…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 8, 2016

Citations

137 A.D.3d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 1590
26 N.Y.S.3d 463

Citing Cases

Rosario v. Albany Express

The record indicates that plaintiff actively litigated his claims against all four defendants, and appeared…

Pavilion Park Slope Cinemas 9, LLC v. Pro Century Corp.

As the plaintiff did not provide a justifiable excuse, there is no need to determine whether the plaintiff…