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.
Carlo OLIVERI, Appellant, v. James W. CARTER, Respondent, et al., Defendant.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), dated October 16, 1997, as, in effect, denied his motion for judgment on his third cause of action asserted against the defendant James W. Carter, and to dismiss the defendant James W. Carter's second counterclaim, and granted the defendant James W. Carter's cross motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him upon his deposit with the County Treasurer of $5,000 he was holding in escrow, on the condition that he withdraw his second counterclaim.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as an exercise of discretion, with costs, the plaintiff's motion for judgment on his third cause of action and to dismiss the second counterclaim is granted, the cross motion is denied, and the remaining causes of action are reinstated.
At the core of this action is a 1983 dispute over the release of escrow funds held by the defendant James W. Carter. Because none of the defendants currently dispute the plaintiff's claim to $4,795 of the escrow funds, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment on his third cause of action in that principal amount. Carter is not liable for prejudgment interest on the funds (see, Takayama v. Schaefer, 240 A.D.2d 21, 669 N.Y.S.2d 656). In addition, because the plaintiff's other four causes of action seek damages in excess of the amount of funds held in escrow, the Supreme Court erred in dismissing those causes of action merely because Carter surrendered the escrow funds to the County Treasurer.
The record indicates that Carter has consistently failed to respond adequately to the plaintiff's discovery demands, resulting in numerous motions and two appeals. In light of this history, and because Carter did not offer an explanation for his failure to provide the information currently at issue, which related to Carter's second counterclaim for defamation, dismissal of the second counterclaim is warranted (see, CPLR 3126; Herrera v. City of New York, 238 A.D.2d 475, 656 N.Y.S.2d 647).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: December 14, 1998
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)