Calise v Verizon Sourcing LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Calise v Verizon Sourcing LLC 2017 NY Slip Op 33324(U) June 15, 2017 Supreme Court, Rockland County Docket Number: 30367/15 Judge: David S. Zuckerman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2017 03:57 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 INDEX NO. 030367/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2017 Compliance Conf. July 31, 2017, 9:15 a.m. To commence the 30 day statutory time period for appeals as of right (CPLR 5513[a]), you are advised to serve a copy of this order, with notice of entry, upon all parties i i l ---. ,....... ,-. -., .,, ~ \_;1~_.__j _l '.., ~-=, ,...._ - - ~. ,----, - ',_ J_ '' - : 'J-: 2 [_;: ::; L cl l ('.,\LI::~~,, , I ~-J - ,17_:, ---·-, DECISION/ORDER /. d l:•:i •.-,1~Cl-l !J::7/,' '.?,IIC.'I}::; -~-.rJ::i ,, . l'.'•dl~IIi -~J:1:1 ;_; ___; -~ ::-J L = -.: ~ :·: :J T T ,-, • ' ~ n-:-- - "- - ,_ __: ~. , ;,, 11 _:_ <l L ._,fl _:_n '._ l_•_ c!_,r: L ." ------ -------- -------- ------------ ZUCKERMAN, J. '.iTLL _:J +- Ly t- ' ,. 2 f 2 n ,-, i1 • __ ,_'._ _j_ ~ f·_,r, 1_·_ -~ J •I , lL_,j_JiL· ·1 _- l ·'· .:. .. , "· Lj r-;,c, · .··'iC- r · ,-j cc "1 -:-_ "' [·/ ,_ .' . _J. \ r ·r. / AFF I ~•·T· / -"'"· I· I· TI· F 1 of 4 -'!'/ ·· ,':.: i l ', '. ) !_' ~ - l - ·- , l - - - ~ ' -. _: 1:·-_ .· ·. i [*FILED: 2] ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2017 03:57 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 INDEX NO. 030367/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2017 R8PLY/AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MOTION REPLY/AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MOTION 5 6 This is an action for wrongful death based on negligence and products liability brought by Plaintiffs' Administrator and Executor Frank Calise ("Decedents") and Michael John Calise and Frank Calise individually (collectively "Plaintiffs") against Defendants Verizon Sourcing LLC, Verizon New York Inc., Motorola Communications and Electronics, Inc., and Motorola Mobility LLC ("Defendants,,, "the Verizon defendants", and "the Motorola defendants", collectively, and "Sourcing", "Verizon", "Motorola", and "Mobility", respectively). Plaintiffs allege that the decedents died when electronic equipment manufactured, belonging to, and/or i.:istalled by Defendants caused a fi :e at Decedents' home. Followjnq sc:vicc of the Summons and Complaint, Defendants interposed Answers. The Verizon defendants now move for, inter alia, an Order dismissing Plaintiff's products liability and warranty claims, arguing that they did not manufacture or sell the allegedly defective product into the marketplace and/or the allegedly defective product was incidental Lo their delivery of service to decedents. Plaintiffs oppose the motion, asserting, inter alia, that there are questions of fact suilable for resolution at trial and that Defendants failed to respond to Plaintiffs' first and second sets of interrogatories and first, second, and third notices for discovery and inspection. The Verizon defendants also move for a Protective Order, asserting that a single telephone call in which Defendants requesled that Plaintjffs withdraw the products liability claims and related discovery constitutes a good faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute. The Motorola defendants likewise move for a Protective Order, re1ying on the assertions by the Veri.zon defendants that a single call requesting withdrawal of the products liability claims and the discovery related thereto reflects a good faith efforl to resolve the pending dispute over discovery. Finally, Plaintiffs cross-move to compel discovery, specifica1ly for failure of Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' first and second sets of interrogatories and first, second, and third notices for discovery and inspection. Dnfendants oppose the motion, arguing that they have responded to both interrogatories, annexing copies of their responses to their answering papers. Plaintiffs' main assertion in opposition to the dismissal motion is that the motion is premature since notices for Discovery and Inspection and depositions are still outstanding. Indeed, their expert avers that he cannot opine on the cause of the fire herein without additional discovery. CPLR §3212(f) provides 2 of 4 [*FILED: 3] ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2017 03:57 PM INDEX NO. 030367/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2017 l f . Ji : r l [ •T I ,_ I , r: _,[. ' ,n r , ., ~ ,_- j :=: _;_ ~ ,, _L (' ~· ,_ , -, l ,-1' +- .:~ / l I l. '. i l -, .. I : f - L p I::, - .I [ 'c'.[ -1 ' , .~ :_: ,-. - -- ,-. ~ - - •;,' . J. L :'· ':.' ·"' C 1,, ·• 1 t. -- . -: r 1. .: i r : ' '.. ~ I - ' L :1 • ' ~ r; f-· I _.i Ii· ' l -· ~ 1 l l: ( I',_. l • f .:.:.-- I : j - Ll'._,,_ [I I L _) Based upon the foregoing, ·:1.: :· J :._.' .l T. it is hereby that the motion for dismissal is denied, with leave to renew upon the close of discovery; and lt is further ORDERED, ORDERED, that the motions for protective orders, and to compel discovery, are denied, with leave to renew the discovery motions upon a proper showing of good falLh, which effort shall include a 3 of 4 [*FILED: 4] ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 06/19/2017 03:57 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 INDEX NO. 030367/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/19/2017 . • . L . _L - . ,. I I , 1- --:-- r,_ , 1l +-f•.1 ORDERED, i J ' ' I . • • .. I. f '. .,, . , I -t. ' [ ; f ; Whiu.:: Pla:ns, REGINALD H. ':__:_~ ,_\ _'._. • / I '• f ~cw York 1060/l RUT TSl!l\lJSF:R, ESO. Kantrowitz, GoLdhamcr & Craliman, Attorneys tor Plaint.i[fs 7 4 7 Chestnut :hdgc, Road, Chestnut l~idq<~, Sul te 200 Nc:w York 10977 4 of 4 PC I' .

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.