Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004

Bivona v. Trump Marina Casino Hotel Resort

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided October 18, 2004

11 A.D.3d 574; 782 N.Y.S.2d 667; 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12157

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Robert v. Azoulay Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Cap Rents Supply, LLC v. Durante (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Nunez v. Laidlaw (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Cruz v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Pierre v. 100 Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Pierre v. 100 Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Vaz v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
LOP Development, LLC v. ZHL Group, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
McGroarty v. Long Island College Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Sagiv v. Gamache (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Whitfield v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Euro-Central Corp. v. Dalsimer, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated March 5, 2004, as denied those branches of their motion which were to vacate an order of the same court dated October 1, 2003, striking their answer unless they provided certain discovery within 30 days and to strike the matter from the inquest calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, those branches of the motion which were to vacate the order dated October 1, 2003, and to strike the matter from the inquest calendar are granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court *575erred in denying those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to vacate an order dated October 1, 2003, striking their answer unless they provided certain discovery within 30 days and to strike the matter from the inquest calendar. The defendants established that they complied with the conditional order of preclusion by showing that they either provided the plaintiffs with the discovery requested in their demand for discovery and inspection or that the information requested in the demand did not exist or was not in their possession (see CPLR 3120 [1] [i]; Bach v City of New York, 304 AD2d 686 [2003]; Byrne v City of New York, 301 AD2d 489 [2003]; Romeo v City of New York, 261 AD2d 379, 380 [1999]; Ahroni v City of New York, 175 AD2d 789 [1991]; Corriel v Volkswagen of Am., 127 AD2d 729, 731 [1987]). We note that the defendants’ failure to provide information in their possession would preclude them from later offering proof regarding that information at trial (see Corriel v Volkswagen of Am., supra at 731). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.