The record provides indication that defendant Mamadou's failure to appear for deposition was not willful, but resulted from his attorney's inability to locate him at his last known address. Although a client has an obligation to remain in communication with his attorney, defendant's failure to communicate is not by itself a sufficient ground upon which to strike his answer (see, Heyward v Benyarko,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
BLAKE v. MAMADOU
281 A.D.2d 301 (2001)
722 N.Y.S.2d 158
LISA BLAKE, Respondent, v. BARRY MAMADOU, Appellant, and GEORGE WARREN, Respondent.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided March 22, 2001.
Decided March 22, 2001.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
