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.
Rigo Cobenas, et al., plaintiffs, v. Ginsburg Development Companies, LLC, et al., defendants second third-party plaintiffs-respondents, Leopard Framing Corp., defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent; Mauricio Soares, third-party defendant, second third-party defendant-appellant (and third- and fourth-third- party actions).
Argued-March 23, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant second third-party defendant Mauricio Soares appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Lubell, J.), entered June 3, 2009, which granted the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff, Leopard Framing Corp., and the separate motion of the defendants second third-party plaintiffs, Ginsburg Development Companies, LLC, Ginsburg Development Companies Corp., GDC Construction & Development Corp. and Fairways Wallkill, LLC, pursuant to CPLR 3126(3) to strike his respective answers to the third-party complaint and the second third-party complaint for failure to appear for a deposition, and directed the entry of default judgments against him.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions granting the respective motions of the defendant third-party plaintiff, Leopard Framing Corp., and the defendants second third-party plaintiffs, Ginsburg Development Companies, LLC, Ginsburg Development Companies Corp., GDC Construction & Development Corp., and Fairways Wallkill, LLC, pursuant to CPLR 3126(3) to strike the respective answers of Mauricio Soares to the third-party complaint and the second third-party complaint for failure to appear for a deposition and directing the entry of default judgments against him and substituting therefor a provision granting the motions to the extent of precluding Mauricio Soares from offering any testimony at trial; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the appellant payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
In the absence of evidence that the appellant willfully and contumaciously failed to appear for an examination before trial, the Supreme Court should not have stricken his answer (see Cambry v. Lincoln Gardens, 50 AD3d 1081; Conciatori v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 46 AD3d 501). The appropriate remedy was to preclude the appellant from offering any testimony at trial (see Patel v. DeLeon, 43 AD3d 432; Williams v. Ryder, TRS, Inc., 29 AD3d 784).
MASTRO, J.P., DILLON, FLORIO and BALKIN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of 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.
Docket No: 2009-06942 (Index No. 3729 /06)
Decided: June 29, 2010
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)