Suarez v. City of New York
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Suarez v City of New York
2026 NY Slip Op 03195
May 20, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Steven Suarez, appellant,
v
City of New York, respondent, et al., defendant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on May 20, 2026
2024-10315, (Index No. 524050/17)
Betsy Barros, J.P.
Linda Christopher
Carl J. Landicino
Laurence L. Love, JJ.
Hecht, Kleeger & Damashek, P.C. (Ephrem J. Wertenteil, New York, NY, of counsel), for appellant.
Steven Banks, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Rebecca L. Visgaitis and Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leon Ruchelsman, J.), dated June 20, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the motion of the defendant City of New York for an extension of time to comply with an order of the same court dated February 7, 2024, directing it to produce certain documents, and certain witnesses for depositions, and denied that branch of the plaintiff's cross-motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the answer of the defendant City of New York.
ORDERED that the order dated June 20, 2024, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Under the circumstances of this case, in the absence of evidence of willful or contumacious conduct, the granting of the motion of the defendant City of New York and the denial of that branch of the plaintiff's cross-motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the City's answer was a provident exercise of discretion (see Caban v Rzak Dev. Inc., 132 AD3d 937, 937-938; Hoi Wah Lai v Mack, 89 AD3d 990).
BARROS, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and LOVE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Suarez v City of New York
2026 NY Slip Op 03195
May 20, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Steven Suarez, appellant,
v
City of New York, respondent, et al., defendant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on May 20, 2026
2024-10315, (Index No. 524050/17)
Betsy Barros, J.P.
Linda Christopher
Carl J. Landicino
Laurence L. Love, JJ.
Hecht, Kleeger & Damashek, P.C. (Ephrem J. Wertenteil, New York, NY, of counsel), for appellant.
Steven Banks, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Rebecca L. Visgaitis and Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leon Ruchelsman, J.), dated June 20, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the motion of the defendant City of New York for an extension of time to comply with an order of the same court dated February 7, 2024, directing it to produce certain documents, and certain witnesses for depositions, and denied that branch of the plaintiff's cross-motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the answer of the defendant City of New York.
ORDERED that the order dated June 20, 2024, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Under the circumstances of this case, in the absence of evidence of willful or contumacious conduct, the granting of the motion of the defendant City of New York and the denial of that branch of the plaintiff's cross-motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the City's answer was a provident exercise of discretion (see Caban v Rzak Dev. Inc., 132 AD3d 937, 937-938;
Hoi Wah Lai v Mack, 89 AD3d 990).
BARROS, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and LOVE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.