General

Tabitha Hamilton et al., Appellants, v. Hugh Francis et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants

268 A.D.2d 458701 N.Y.S.2d 918·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2000·NY

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

Tabitha Hamilton et al., Appellants, v Hugh Francis et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. [701 NYS2d 918] [MAJORITY] —In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated December 4, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated. The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion, as the plaintiffs had complied with the discovery order by the time the motion was made (see, CPLR 3126). We reject the plaintiffs’ contention, raised in their brief, that sanctions are warranted. Thompson, J. P., S. Miller, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.