Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Segundo Jesus Tenamaza v. Knickerbocker Construction Ii

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


June 19, 2012

SEGUNDO JESUS TENAMAZA,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
KNICKERBOCKER CONSTRUCTION II, LLC, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS/THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
MC & O CONTRACTING, INC.,
THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,
MC & O MASONRY, INC., ET AL.,
THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS.

Tenamaza v Knickerbocker Constr. II, LLC

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 19, 2012

Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered July 27, 2011, which, in this personal injury action, granted plaintiff's motion to vacate an order, same court and Justice, entered January 25, 2011, granting defendants' motion and third-party defendant MC & O Contracting, Inc.'s cross motion to strike the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and plaintiff's motion denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint.

Although "there is a strong public policy favoring resolution of cases on the merits" (Ferguson v Hess Corp., 89 AD3d 599, 599 [2011]), the excuse plaintiff offered for his failure to attend multiple depositions and to keep in contact with his counsel was unreasonable. The affidavit plaintiff submitted in support of his motion fails to mention, let alone explain, how he was unaware of the deposition scheduled for June 23, 2010, when he executed medical authorizations a mere 20 days earlier. Nor did plaintiff's counsel demonstrate that they undertook reasonable efforts to locate plaintiff. As a "plaintiff's failure to maintain contact with his attorney and to keep himself apprised of the progress of his lawsuit [does not] constitute a reasonable excuse for [a] default," plaintiff's motion should have been denied (Sheikh v New York City Tr. Auth., 258 AD2d 347 [1999]).

Plaintiff's arguments pertaining to defendants' motion and MC & O's cross motion to strike the complaint are misplaced, as plaintiff never appealed from the order granting those motions (see Pergamon Press v Tietze, 81 AD2d 831 [1981], lv dismissed 54 NY2d 605 [1981]). In any event, the arguments are unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JUNE 19, 2012

DEPUTY CLERK

20120619

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.