On May 05, 2017 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Jamel Vargas,
and
Claudia Cristal Cintron,
Ean Holding, Llc,
Lanette B. Woodard,
for Torts - Motor Vehicle
in the District Court of New York County.
Preview
—_—
INDEX NO. 154212/2017
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/01/2018 10:25 AM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. ADAM SILVERA PART__22
J.S.C. Justice
~
Index Number : 154212/2017
VARGAS, JAMEL INDEX NO.
VS.
MOTION DATE
EAN HOLDING, LLC
SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 MOTION SEQ. NO.
DISMISS
‘The following papers, numbered 1 to *7_, were read on this motion tolfor _“
Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause — Affidavits — Exhibits JNojs)__t, 2,3
Answering Affidavits — Exhibits [Nojs). —Z
Replying Affidavits J Nofs).
Notizeo€ Gross- Motion, $06). “35,6
Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion is
to dismiss the complaint for failure to respond to discovery by defendant Lanette Wooddard, and the
cross-motion to dismiss the complaint or to preclude plaintiff from offering evidence at trial by co-
defendants Ean Holdings, LLC and Claudia Cristal Cintron, are both denied as defendants failed to
submit a satisfactory affirmation of good faith as required. See 22 NYCRR §202.7(c); Sixty-Six Crosby
Assoc. v. Berger & Kramer, LLP, 256 AD2d 26 (15 Dep’t 1998). 22 NYCRR §202.7(a) provides that no
motion which relates to discovery shall be filed unless it includes, “an affirmation that counsel has
conferred with counsel for the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the
motion”. Such affirmation “shall indicate the time, place and nature of the consultation and the issues
discussed and any resolutions”. 22 NYCRR §202.7(c). Here, the submitted affirmation does not indicate
the “time, place and nature of the consultation and the issues discussed...”, as required. Furthermore,
defendants have failed to establish that plaintiff's failure tc respond to discovery was willful and
contumacious. Thus, defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to comply with discovery, and
defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss or preclude, are denied.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that defendant’s motion is denied in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that co-defendants’ cross-motion is denied in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the parties shall appear on July 16, 2018 at 9:30am, in room 103 of 80 Centre
Street, New York, NY, for a previously scheduled compliance conference; and it is further
ORDERED that within 30 days of entry, plaintiff shall serve a copy of this decision/order upon
defendant with notice of entry.
(A
This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court.
Dated: 4/ SOB JS.
HON. ADAM SILVERA
1. CHECK ONE:.... oe sssusneee [] CASE DISPOSED [YNON-FINAL DISPOSITION
2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: OTION Is: CJGRANTED MDENIED CIGRANTEDINPART = LJ OTHER
3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: women (_) SETTLE ORDER CSuBMit ORDER
(po Not Post CIFIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT (_)REFERENCE
lof 1
Document Filed Date
May 01, 2018
Case Filing Date
May 05, 2017
Category
Torts - Motor Vehicle
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
—_— INDEX NO. 154212/2017 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/01/2018 10:25 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ADAM SILVERA PART__22 J.S.C. Justice ~ Index Number : 154212/2017 VARGAS, JAMEL INDEX NO. VS. MOTION DATE EAN HOLDING, LLC SEQUENCE NUMBER : 001 MOTION SEQ. NO. DISMISS ‘The following papers, numbered 1 to *7_, were read on this motion tolfor _“ Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause — Affidavits — Exhibits JNojs)__t, 2,3 Answering Affidavits — Exhibits [Nojs). —Z Replying Affidavits J Nofs). Notizeo€ Gross- Motion, $06). “35,6 Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion is to dismiss the complaint for failure to respond to discovery by defendant Lanette Wooddard, and the cross-motion to dismiss the complaint or to preclude plaintiff from offering evidence at trial by co- defendants Ean Holdings, LLC and Claudia Cristal Cintron, are both denied as defendants failed to submit a satisfactory affirmation of good faith as required. See 22 NYCRR §202.7(c); Sixty-Six Crosby Assoc. v. Berger & Kramer, LLP, 256 AD2d 26 (15 Dep’t 1998). 22 NYCRR §202.7(a) provides that no motion which relates to discovery shall be filed unless it includes, “an affirmation that counsel has conferred with counsel for the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion”. Such affirmation “shall indicate the time, place and nature of the consultation and the issues discussed and any resolutions”. 22 NYCRR §202.7(c). Here, the submitted affirmation does not indicate the “time, place and nature of the consultation and the issues discussed...”, as required. Furthermore, defendants have failed to establish that plaintiff's failure tc respond to discovery was willful and contumacious. Thus, defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to comply with discovery, and defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss or preclude, are denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant’s motion is denied in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that co-defendants’ cross-motion is denied in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that the parties shall appear on July 16, 2018 at 9:30am, in room 103 of 80 Centre Street, New York, NY, for a previously scheduled compliance conference; and it is further ORDERED that within 30 days of entry, plaintiff shall serve a copy of this decision/order upon defendant with notice of entry. (A This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court. Dated: 4/ SOB JS. HON. ADAM SILVERA 1. CHECK ONE:.... oe sssusneee [] CASE DISPOSED [YNON-FINAL DISPOSITION 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: OTION Is: CJGRANTED MDENIED CIGRANTEDINPART = LJ OTHER 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: women (_) SETTLE ORDER CSuBMit ORDER (po Not Post CIFIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT (_)REFERENCE lof 1