You are here: / / JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, AFTER A COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE, ISSUED...
,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, AFTER A COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE, ISSUED A PRECLUSION ORDER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MOTION PENDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, issued a preclusion order after a compliance conference because no motion was pending:

Order … which, upon granting plaintiff’s motion to reargue, reinstated his lost earnings claim but precluded the claim for years which tax returns are not produced to defendants, unanimously reversed, without costs, and the claim reinstated without limitation.

The underlying preclusion order should not have been issued sua sponte at a compliance conference, with no motion pending … . Sullivan v Snow, 2021 NY Slip Op 01873, First Dept 3-25-21

 

You might also like
UNDER THE FACTS, PRE-TRIAL REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE PROPERLY DENIED.
PROCEDURES MANDATED BY THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARD ACTS NOT FOLLOWED; SUPREME COURT’S ORDER MODIFIED.
EVEN THOUGH THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EAST RIVER PARK WILL BENEFIT THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY (FLOOD PROTECTION) AS WELL AS THE PARK, THE RECONSTRUCTION SERVES A PARK PURPOSE AND THE APPROVAL OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE IS THERFORE NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PEBBLE-SIZED DEBRIS WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF AND ALLEGEDLY SERIOUSLY INJURED HIS EYE GAVE RISE TO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INADEQUATE HEIGHT OF A GUARDRAIL ALONG THE STAIRWELL WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLANTIFF’S FALL, HEIGHT WAS BELOW THAT MANDATED BY THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL ABOUT NINE FEET FROM ONE FLOOR TO ANOTHER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
POLICE DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION UNTIL AFTER DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED AND SEIZED, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY AN AIR CONDITIONER WHEN TWO OF THE FOUR RODS ATTACHING THE AIR CONDITIONER TO THE CEILING DETACHED AND ONE END OF THE UNIT FELL; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE AIR CONDITIONER WAS A FALLING OBJECT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO SEEK A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN... IN THE CONTEXT OF AN INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE REQUIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION...