Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Lamont WILSON, etc., et al., respondents, v. GALICIA CONTRACTING & RESTORATION CORP., et al., defendants, Safway Steel Products, Inc., appellant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Safway Steel Products, Inc., appeals (1), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated June 18, 2003, as granted the plaintiffs' motion to schedule an inquest on the issue of damages, and (2) from an order of the same court dated October 7, 2003, which denied its motion to vacate the order dated June 18, 2003, and an earlier order of the same court dated May 14, 2002, which, inter alia, struck its answer.
ORDERED that the order dated June 18, 2003, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated October 17, 2003, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.
As a result of the appellant's failure to timely comply with a conditional order dated May 14, 2002, that order became absolute and the appellant's answer was stricken (see Unger v. Dover Union Free School Dist., 303 A.D.2d 677, 756 N.Y.S.2d 778). To excuse the delay, the appellant had the burden of demonstrating a meritorious defense and a justifiable excuse for the default (see Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead v. Jablonsky, 283 A.D.2d 553, 554, 725 N.Y.S.2d 76; Kyriacopoulos v. Mendon Leasing Corp., 216 A.D.2d 532, 533, 628 N.Y.S.2d 769). The appellant failed to proffer any acceptable reason for its two-year long pattern of failure to respond to discovery demands, court orders, or the conditional order to strike the answer. Given the extent of the inactivity, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in striking the answer (see Kihl v. Pfeffer, 94 N.Y.2d 118, 122-123, 700 N.Y.S.2d 87, 722 N.E.2d 55).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 21, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)