You are here: / / Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Pre-Trial Conference Did Not Warrant S...

Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Pre-Trial Conference Did Not Warrant Striking Answer

The Third Department reversed Supreme Court’s striking of defendant’s answer as a penalty for defendant’s not appearing at a pre-trial conference as ordered:

Generally speaking, and based upon sound underlying policy, there is a strong judicial preference for determination of issues upon the merits ….  Consistent with this policy, defendant’s failure to comply with the court’s directive for in-person appearance at a pretrial conference is not punishable by an order striking the pleadings. The applicable rule instead specifically authorizes the court only to deem a party’s failure to comply  “a default under  CPLR  3404,” which  results in removal  of the case from  the trial calendar (22 NYCRR 202.26 [e]…).  CBA Properties LLC v Global Airlines Services Inc, 515868, 3rd Dept 7-18-13

 

You might also like
Juror Had Personal/Professional Relationships with Two Prosecution Witnesses—For Cause Challenge Should Have Been Granted
PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL FILED A SECOND COMPLAINT ARISING OUT OF THE SAME FACTS AS THE FIRST COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE CERTAIN INTENTIONAL TORTS BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RAN OUT, DISMISSAL OF THE SECOND COMPLAINT WAS NOT REQUIRED, CONSOLIDATION OF THE TWO COMPLAINTS WAS ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
“Weight of the Evidence” Review.
PETITIONER, A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE AND THE ONLY FEMALE MANUAL-LABOR EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, DEMONSTRATED SHE WAS TERMINATED SOLELY BECAUSE OF HER GENDER; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REINSTATED HER WITH BACK PAY (THIRD DEPT).
WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
CONTRACTOR OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF OVER AND ABOVE THE OBLIGATIONS IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THEM.
Pyrotechnician Was Not an Employee
THE APPEAL WAS MOOT BECAUSE THE PETITION SOUGHT TO HALT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MINING SHAFT APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE SHAFT HAD BEEN COMPLETED AT THE TIME OF THE APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Release Precluded Civil Rights Action; No Showing Release Signed Under Duress;... Termination of Parental Rights Affirmed Because Diligent Efforts to Reunite...