You are here: / / LAW OFFICE FAILURE JUSTIFIED CONSIDERING EVIDENCE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN...
,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE JUSTIFIED CONSIDERING EVIDENCE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION, MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY GRANTED, HOWEVER DELAYS IN DISCOVERY WARRANTED SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined law office failure was an adequate excuse for failing to present evidence in support of plaintiff’s original motion which was submitted in support of a motion to renew. However, in light of plaintiff’s delays in discovery, sanctions were appropriate:

… Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in considering the new evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of those branches of her motion which were for leave to renew her prior motion and her opposition to the appellants’ cross motion. Although the new facts may have been known to the plaintiff at the time of her prior motion, the plaintiff explained that the new evidence was not submitted in connection with her prior motion and opposition due to a misunderstanding by counsel that ultimately led to law office failure. * * *

“The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the Supreme Court’s discretion” … . “Whether there is a reasonable excuse for a default is a discretionary, sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant factors, including the extent of the delay, whether there has been prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits” … . “[T]he court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005) where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue” … . …

… [A]though the plaintiff set forth a reasonable explanation for her failure to fully comply with the conditional order of dismissal, the fact remains that she failed to fully comply with that order, and her conduct during discovery cannot be countenanced … . Consequently, … a monetary sanction in the total sum of $5,000 is warranted to compensate the appellants for the time expended and costs incurred in connection with the plaintiff’s failure to fully and timely comply with the conditional order of dismissal … . Burro v Kang, 2018 NY Slip Op 08457, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF BASKETBALL PLAYER WAS AWARE OF THE CRACK IN THE BASKETBALL COURT OVER WHICH HE TRIPPED AND FELL, SUIT WAS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, CONCURRING JUSTICE ARGUED THAT THE CRACK WAS NOT A RISK INHERENT IN THE SPORT, BUT WAS CONSTRAINED TO AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY BASED ON PRECEDENT (SECOND DEPT).
Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint Not Justified and Improperly Imposed
THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK, A FORMER ASS’T DA, DISCUSSED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING WITH THE JUDGE; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE SENTENCING, SENTENCE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
BANK’S FAILURE TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE WHICH MET THE CRITERIA OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE REQUIRED DENIAL OF THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE AND MAILING CRITERIA REQUIRED THAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
RPAPL 1306 REQUIRES INFORMATION TO BE FILED WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS OF THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE; THE FILING IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; HERE THE FILING WAS EIGHT DAYS LATE, REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
THE SCAFFOLD FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL HAD NO SAFETY RAILINGS AND THE SCAFFOLD WOBBLED AND COLLAPSED BECAUSE OF THE KICKBACK FROM A HAMMER DRILL PLAINTIFF WAS USING; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE REAR DRIVER IN A REAR-END COLLISION IS NOT ALWAYS NEGLIGENT, THE ALLEGATION THE FRONT DRIVER SUDDENLY STOPPED FOR A YELLOW LIGHT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO AVOID SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE FRONT DRIVER (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY ISSUED TREE PIT PERMITS FOR THE SIDEWALK ABOVE A SUBWAY STATION; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN THE SUBWAY STATION BELOW THE SIDEWALK WHEN A PIECE OF CONCRETE FELL; THE CITY DID NOT CLAIM IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (TREE PIT PERMITS) (SECOND 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

EVEN PHYSICALLY SMALL DEFECTS, IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER FACTORS, CAN CONSTITUTE... THE PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP OF A VEHICLE CREATED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE...