LaSalle Talman Bank, F.S.B. v Weisblum & Felice
Decided on October 16, 2012
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.
Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered April 14, 2011, which, in an action to recover damages for alleged malpractice, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' cross motions, pursuant to CPLR 3126, to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The complaint was properly dismissed, given that plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders despite the fact that the second order clearly warned plaintiff that its action would be dismissed unless it complied. Plaintiff's supplemental discovery response was late and incomplete, its excuse for failing to respond in a timely manner lacks merit, and it has not offered any excuse for those documents that it has still not exchanged. Thus, it can be reasonably inferred that plaintiff's conduct has been willful and contumacious (see Johnson v City of New York, 188 AD2d 302, 303 [1st Dept 1992]).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: OCTOBER 16, 2012
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...