AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

EUNICE F. SHUMALSKI et al., Appellants, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

On summary consideration, order affirmed, with costs. The Appellate Division reversed Special Term's order granting plaintiffs permission to serve a further bill of particulars 11 months after the 30-day preclusion order "on the law and the facts". In this circumstance, the disposition at the Appellate Division could be disturbed only if it were concluded that plaintiffs were entitled to be relieved of their delinquency as a matter of law and that the disposition at the Appellate Division therefore was an abuse of discretion (Barasch v Micucci, 49 N.Y.2d 594, 598). The record does not permit that conclusion. In light of the breadth of the preclusion order effectively foreclosing proof of the cause of action sued on, summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted.

Concur: Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SHUMALSKI v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY
(Jun 30, 1981)