Grgurovic v Controlled Combustion Co.
2011 NY Slip Op 02533 [82 AD3d 669]
March 31, 2011
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, May 11, 2011


Mile Grgurovic et al., Appellants,
v
Controlled Combustion Company et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[*1] Bisogno & Meyerson, Brooklyn (Elizabeth Mark Meyerson of counsel), for appellants.

Hardin, Kundla, McKeon & Poletto, P.A., New York (Stephen J. Donahue of counsel), for Controlled Combustion Company, respondent.

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Patrick J. Lawless of counsel), for Robert L. Teitelbaum, respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered December 30, 2009, which, pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered November 2, 2009, dismissed the complaint, with prejudice, as against defendants-respondents, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Because the judgment sought to be appealed did not result from an order deciding a motion "made upon notice" as contemplated by CPLR 5701 (a) (2), it is not appealable as of right (see Jun-Yong Kim v A&J Produce Corp., 15 AD3d 251, 252 [2005]). However, we deem the notice of appeal a motion for leave to appeal pursuant to CPLR 5701 (c), and we grant the motion (see id.).

On the merits, the court providently exercised its discretion by dismissing the complaint as against defendants. Plaintiffs repeatedly failed to comply with the court's discovery orders. Their wilfulness can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances (see Youni Gems Corp. v Bassco Creations Inc., 70 AD3d 454, 455 [2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 863 [2010]).

We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and RomÁn, JJ.