Early Motion to Dismiss GrantedPermalink
Proper analysis of the insurance law was the key to this successful result, but the strategic decision to make this motion early was the key to the client avoiding significant legal fees exposure.
The case is Skibar v. 338 West 15th Street, LLC, Index No. 157241/2018.
G&B successfully opposes Motion to Restore, leading to dismissal, of Suffolk County matter that presented unique property damage allegationsPermalink
Date: September 27, 2018
See the decision here.
Ignoring Court Ordered Discovery Leads to Preclusion of Tenant’s Claim, by Arthur XanthosPermalink
For unknown reasons, the plaintiff-tenant-lawyer refused to hand over medical authorizations and refused to particularize his injuries. After several attempts at securing the documents failed, this Firm made a motion to compel the tenant to produce the medical authorizations and to serve a meaningful bill of particulars. That motion resulted in an order, with which the plaintiff-tenant-lawyer failed to comply. So another motion was made, and this time an order was sought to preclude/dismiss the tenant's bodily injury claims. That second motion resulted in a more stringent order setting another deadline for the tenant's compliance, and warning the tenant of penalties for non-compliance. The tenant again failed to comply. At a subsequent conference and upon being advised of the tenant's non-compliance, the court after oral argument precluded the tenant from any bodily injury claims at trial, and dismissed any negligence claims found in his complaint. A copy of this decision/order (Johnson v. 78/79 York) can be found at this Firm's website (www.gbglaw.com) under Publications.
Preclusion orders are very rare, especially against pro se plaintiffs. Counsel should expect to make more than one motion, and should request a progressively stronger sanction with each motion made. Obtaining such an order is not a quick exercise either, as it took nearly two years to secure the one discussed herein. -APX 12/16/14