TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Unity Manufacturing Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

Unity Manufacturing Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company

Unity Mfg. Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 97 A.D.2d 462 (1983)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 17, 1983
Citations
97 A.D.2d 462467 N.Y.S.2d 4331983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20058

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

In an action to recover on an insurance policy, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kunzeman, J.), dated May 24, 1982, as conditionally dismissed plaintiff’s complaint as against defendant St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, unless a prior disclosure order was complied with within 20 days, (2) from a decision of the same court, dated October 27, 1982, (3) from an order of the same court, dated November 9,1982, entered on the decision dated October 27,1982, which, inter alia, granted defendant St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint as against it, and (4) from a judgment of the same court, dated November 30, 1982, in favor of St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, dismissing the complaint as against it. Purported appeal from decision dated October 27,1982 dismissed. No appeal lies from a decision. Appeals from orders dated May 24,1982 and November 9,1982 dismissed (see Matter ofAho, 39 NY2d 241,248 ). Judgment affirmed. Defendant St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company is awarded one bill of costs. For more than a year, plaintiff failed to comply with a prior order of Justice Durante to produce the items sought in a notice to depose and was unable to provide a valid excuse for such default. Justice Kunzeman’s conditional order of dismissal was therefore proper (see Danahy v Meese, 84 AD2d 670 ), and, given plaintiff’s subsequent failure to comply with the conditional order of dismissal, absolute dismissal of the complaint was a proper sanction (see Jonard Inds. Corp. v Jerico Precision Mfg. Corp., 87 AD2d 810 ). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1983: 21984: 11985: 11991: 12009: 12019: 12021: 119832026peak 1983 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Von Maack v. Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr.2021 NY Slip Op 03628
  2. Foti v. Suero97 A.D.2d 748 (1983)
  3. Joseph v. Roller Castle, Ltd.100 A.D.2d 839 (1984)
  4. Walsh v. Hudson Transit Lines Inc.98 A.D.2d 745 (1983)
  5. Ragubir v. 44 Court Street60 A.D.3d 833 (2009)
  6. Wilson v. Wilson174 A.D.2d 736 (1991)

Most recent

  1. Von Maack v. Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr.2021 NY Slip Op 03628
  2. Ahmed v. Ahmed2019 NY Slip Op 6580
  3. Ragubir v. 44 Court Street60 A.D.3d 833 (2009)
  4. Wilson v. Wilson174 A.D.2d 736 (1991)
  5. Milevoi v. Conciliation & Appeals Board129 Misc. 2d 1029 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1985)
  6. Joseph v. Roller Castle, Ltd.100 A.D.2d 839 (1984)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
In re Aho, 347 N.E.2d 647 (N.Y. 1976) 3,785
Danahy v. Meese, 84 A.D.2d 670 (1981) 25
Jonard Indus. Corp. v. Jerico Precision Mfg. Corp., 87 A.D.2d 810 (1982) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list