Santiago v City of New York
Annotate this CaseCarlos Santiago, Appellant,
v
City of New York et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
—[*1] Mallilo & Grossman, Flushing (Francesco Pomara, Jr. of counsel), for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Stephen J. McGrath of counsel), for City of New York, respondent.
Molod Spitz & DeSantis, P.C., New York (Marcy Sonneborn of counsel), for Milea Truck Sales Corp. and M.T.S. Realty Corp., respondents.
Law Offices of Peter D. Assail, LLC, New York (Peter D. Assail of counsel), for Cibao Meat Products Inc., respondent.
Law Office of James J. Toomey, New York (Evy L. Kazansky of counsel), for 38-40 Food Corp., respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered on or about March 6, 2009, which granted defendants-respondents' motions pursuant to CPLR 3126 dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The complaint was properly dismissed for persistent, unexplained noncompliance with four disclosure orders, including a self-executing conditional order of dismissal that was granted on default and became absolute (see AWL Indus., Inc. v QBE Ins. Corp., 65 AD3d 904 [2009]; Min Yoon v Costello, 29 AD3d 407 [2006]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Nardelli and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
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.