Young v. Monroe Cnty. Clerk's Off., 63 A.D.3d 1640 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · Go Syfert
Young v. Monroe Cnty. Clerk's Off., 63 A.D.3d 1640 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Little v. Steelcase, Inc. (nyappdiv, 2022-06-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Little v. Steelcase, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Because plaintiff is now precluded from offering evidence regarding damages and causation, the court properly granted that part of the motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint ( see Gibbs , 16 NY3d at 82 ; Foster , 63 AD3d at 1641).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lee v. Barnett
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The *910 plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her failure to appear for her deposition (see Harris v City of New York, 117 AD3d 790 [2014]; Almonte v Pichardo, 105 AD3d 687, 688 [2013]; Carabello v Luna, 49 AD3d 679, 680 [2008]) or a potentially meritorious cause of action inasmuch as she failed to submit competent medical evidence demonstrating that she sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject automobile accident (see Foster v Dealmaker, SLS, LLC, 63 AD3d 1640, 1641 [2009]; Mora v Scarpitta, 52 AD3d 663 [2008]; La…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burton v. Matteliano
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Because the preclusion order is in effect, plaintiff is precluded from presenting evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and defendant is therefore entitled to dismissal of the action against him (see Foster, 63 AD3d at 1641).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burton v. Matteliano
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Because the preclusion order is in effect, plaintiff is precluded from presenting evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and defendant is therefore entitled to dismissal of the action against him (see Foster, 63 AD3d at 1641).
cited Cited "see, e.g." AWL Industries, Inc. v. QBE Insurance
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
Corp., 272 AD2d 124 [2000]; VSP Assoc., v 46 Estates Corp., 243 AD2d 373 [1997]; see also Foster v Dealmaker, SLS, LLC, 63 AD3d 1640 [2009]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Christopher Young
v.
Monroe County Clerk's Office
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 5, 2009.
63 A.D.3d 1640
Published

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John J. Ark, J.), entered March 14, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the CPLR article 78 petition seeking to compel respondents to provide petitioner with a copy of the verdict sheet used at his criminal trial. Respondents have asserted that, in response to petitioner’s repeated requests for the-verdict sheet, they searched their files relating to petitioner’s case “page by page” and determined that they were not in possession of the verdict sheet. Thus, respondents established that they did not “fail[ ] to perform a duty enjoined upon [them] by law” (CPLR 7803 [1]). We further conclude that respondents’ responses to petitioner’s requests were not “made in violation of lawful procedure, . . . affected by an error of law or . . . arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion” (CPLR 7803 [3]). The inability of respondents to locate the verdict sheet in their files constitutes a rational basis for their failure to provide petitioner with a copy of that document (see generally Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]). Respondents are “under no obligation to furnish documents [that they] do[ ] not possess” (Matter of Rivette v District Attorney of Rensselaer County, 272 AD2d 648, 649 [2000]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Fahey, Garni and Pine, JJ.