Legal Opinion

Depo v. Marine Midland Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 12, 1980PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: We have held that a party seeking to excuse noncompliance with a preclusion order must meet a “heavy burden” of explanation (Call v Smith, 34 AD2d 1092). Plaintiffs in this case have failed to satisfy that standard and Special Term should not have excused their failure to submit timely answers to defendant’s interrogatories. The only excuse offered is the conclusory statement contained in the affidavit of their attorney of “extensive reorganization and legal problems” and an affidavit of one of the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Le Frois Foods Corp. v. Policy Advancing Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
  2. Call v. SmithAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1970

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Kwiatek v. Buffalo Truck Sales & ServiceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
  2. Caton v. Doug Urban Construction Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API