Carven Associates v. American Home Assurance Corp.
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Andrea v. Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy & Drake Architects & Landscape Architects, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Carven Assocs. v. AM. HOME ASSURANCE CORP. (N.Y. 1994)
- Andrea v. Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy & Drake, Architects & Landscape Architects, P.C. (N.Y. 2005)
- Anderson & Anderson LLP-Guangzhou v. North Am. Foreign Trading Corp. (2d Cir. 2021)
- Downtown Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Insurance (Civil Court of the City of New York 2007)
- Wilson v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- MacIntosh v. Bronzo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Poulos v. U-Haul International, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the order of Supreme Court dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint reinstated. The certified question should be answered in the negative.
In the singular circumstances presented by this appeal we conclude that Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion to dismiss the complaint and the third-party complaint, even after its previous denial of defendant American Home’s motion had been affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department (173 AD2d 369). A subsequent order of the Appellate Division, Second Department (175 AD2d 790), determined that a prior action by plaintiffs based upon the same events as the present action had been dismissed for their willful and repeated refusal to obey court-ordered disclosure and accordingly, plaintiffs were not entitled to reinstitute their action against defendant (see, CPLR 205 [a]).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum; Judge Smith taking no part.
Order reversed, etc.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.