Stanger v Morgan

Annotate this Case
Stanger v Morgan 2012 NY Slip Op 07897 Decided on November 20, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 20, 2012
Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick, Freedman, JJ.
8654 111703/09

[*1]Joel Stanger, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Dawn M. Morgan, et al., Defendants-Appellants.




McGivney & Kluger, P.C., New York (Michael R. Rawlinson
of counsel), for appellants.
Westermann, Sheehy, Keenan, Samaan & Aydelott, LLP,
White Plains (Timothy M. Smith of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered October 4, 2010, which denied defendants' motion for an order to compel plaintiff to accept service of their response to plaintiff's notice to admit nunc pro tunc or, in the alternative, to strike the third item in the notice to admit, unanimously modified, on the law, the third item in the notice stricken, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

While defendants' brief delay in responding to the notice to admit, which occurred during the substitution of counsel, did not result in any prejudice, the motion court could not have compelled plaintiff to accept the response, as it was unsworn and improperly made "upon information and belief" (see CPLR 3123[a]; Rosenfeld v Vorsanger, 5 AD3d 462, 463 [2d Dept 2004]). Nevertheless, the request for an admission that the defendant driver was on her cellular phone at the time of the accident was palpably improper, as the matter was in dispute and went to the heart of the issue of whether she was negligent in the operation of the subject vehicle (see New Image Constr., Inc. v TDR Enters. Inc., 74 AD3d 680, 681 [1st Dept 2010]; Meadowbrook-Richman, Inc.
v Cicchiello, 273 AD2d 6 [1st Dept 2000]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 20, 2012

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.