Akkoc v 12-14 E. 37th Dev. Corp.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Akkoc v 12-14 E. 37th Dev. Corp. 2013 NY Slip Op 32655(U) September 19, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 107610/2005 Judge: Lucy Billings Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PART PRESENT: 'tu Justice Index Number: 107610/2005 AKKOC, NURI M. vs. 12-14 E. 37TH DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE NUMBER : 010 INDEX N O . - - - - MOTION DATE _ _ __ MOTION SEQ. NO. - - - DISMISS The following papers, numbered 1 to _J__ , were read on this motion totfp{. ~5.S. tk Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause -Affidavits - Exhibits Answering Affidavits - E x h i b i t s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Replying Affidavits _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered~ ().,.Utf. ~ !..t><f'4Jni I No(s).,_ _I_ __ I No(s). _ _.,_ __ _ I No(s). _ _;_ __ W: TW UflWi ~l4ffl5 ¢ w~~ mrlttJ>i 1V ~t;>Wf}; jiu ~IK fv fhl /llW~ {#U f}Jv-f ~ tJll ~ ~~'~ tfte,U~fJY' tJMI, o~ ,fttM~ ~·s tfdJtltlVl . c .P. (.,. f2 t 3 I I 0 ;i.. f I 3, ~. w 0 i= (f) :::> ..., ~ c w a:: a:: w LL w a:: >.;..:,. ..J ~ ..J z :::> 0 LL (/) FILED I- <( (,) w ~ w a:: z a:: - (/) (!) "'· 'Ott 2n' 2tli3. 3: Cl) - w 0 ..J ...J U) <( (,) 0 Q I- coUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE LL -w z J: I- NEW YORK a:: ~o c: LL Dated: L-~ (""")-afl1~ s. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,J.S.C. 'l ( l't ( t3 1. CHECK ONE:..................................................................... 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ........................... MOTION IS: ~NON:.FtNAL DISPOSITION CASE DISPOSED 0 GRANTED 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ 0SETTLE ORDER DO NOT POST DENIED B GRANTED IN PART 0 SUBMIT ORDER FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT OTHER REFERENCE [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 46" --------------------------------------x NURI M. AKKOC Index No. 107610/2005 I Plaintiff DECISION AND ORDER -against12-14 E. 37TH DEVELOPMENT CORP., Defendant --------------------------------------x 12-14 E. 37TH DEVELOPMENT CORP., Third Party Plaintiff -againstCONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., F.J. SCIAME CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., and LUCKY DELI, INC., Third Party Defendants FILED OCT 25 2013 COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE NEW YORK --------------------------------------x LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C.: The remaining defendant, 12-14 E. 37th Development Corp., moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to C.P.L.R. 3126(3). §§ 1021 and Defendant bases its motion on plaintiff's failure to respond to defendant's disclosure requests served in December 2011 and the failure by plaintiff's attorneys to attempt to contact their client to respond to the requests and thus learn of his death as of March 2011, to notify all other parties of his death, and to move to substitute the administratrix of his estate as plaintiff. Defendant, however, fails to show either that it ever served its disclosure requests on plaintiff's attorneys at akkoc.152 1 [* 3] their current address as of when defendant first appeared in this action in 2010 or that the July 2012 preliminary conference or Preliminary Conference Order specifically referred to those requests, so as to prompt an inquiry by plaintiff's attorneys. Although defendant's attorney insists that at an April 3013 status conference plaintiff's attorney orally agreed to respond to defendant's disclosure requests within 30 days, plaintiff's attorney denies any such agreement, as he had no knowledge of the requests at that point. Since the claimed agreement was neither in writing nor on the record, such an agreement would be unenforceable in any event. C.P.L.R. § 2104. Even had such a stipulation been binding under C.P.L.R. § 2104, it would have been of uncertain effect, as plaintiff's attorney at that point did know that he was without a client to represent. Plaintiff's attorneys may have been justified in protecting their client's judgment by appealing in April 2011 the order vacating the default judgment and by moving in January 2012 to reargue defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment without attempting to consult their client. ·The attorneys were not justified, however, in appearing for a settlement conference in September 2012 without having attempted to consult their client. They do not show that they had consulted him before his death regarding a minimum amount that he would accept. Although defendant's offer at that conference was minimal, perhaps justifying rejection without an attempt to contact plaintiff, his attorneys did not know that the offer would be so low before the akkoc.152 2 [* 4] appearance. As a result of their failures to attempt to contact plaintiff, his attorneys have wasted the parties' time at that appearance and the subsequent appearance for a compliance conference in September 2012. The record reveals no attempt by plaintiff's attorneys to contact their client even as the November 2012 deadline for depositions approached. After plaintiff's attorneys in February 2013 learned of plaintiff's death, they attempted to obtain the parties' stipulation to substitute the administratrix of his estate as plaintiff, so that the status conferences scheduled in April and June 2013 might proceed productively. Defendant fails to show that it rejected these attempts until the June 2013 conference. Since then, however, plaintiff's attorneys have unnecessarily delayed in moving to substitute the administratrix of plaintiff's estate as plaintiff. Consequently, the court grants defendant's motion to the extent of ordering dismissal of the complaint if plaintiff's attorneys further fail to move to substitute the administratrix of plaintiff's estate as plaintiff by September 30, 2013. C.P.L.R. § 1021. The court also imposes costs in the form of attorneys' fees awarded to defendant of $1,000.00, to be paid to defendant by plaintiff's attorneys, for the two court appearances in September 2013. C.P.L.R. § 3126. If plaintiff's attorneys fail to pay defendant within 30 days after service of this order akkoc.152 3 [* 5] with notice of entry, defendant may enter a judgment against them for that amount. DATED: September 19, 2013 LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C. FILED OC1 25 2013 COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE NEW YORK akkoc.152 4

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.