The following papers numbered 1 to 11 read on this motion

Notice of Motion 1 - 5

Affirmation in Opposition 6 - 8

Reply Affirmation 9 - 11

Defendants' Khemrj Sooknaraine and Gaitree Sooknaraine motion, inter alia, for an order dismissing plaintiff's complaint upon plaintiff's failure to appear for a court-ordered deposition is granted.

Pursuant to the terms of the preliminary conference order dated March 27, 2012, which, although not discussed in the present papers, is on file with the Queens County Clerk, the compliance conference order dated September 24, 2012, the so-ordered stipulation of this court (Ritholtz, J.), dated April 8, 2013, and a second so-ordered stipulation of this court (Ritholtz, J.), dated June 26, 2013, plaintiff was ordered, inter alia, to appear for a deposition.

Despite this court's intervention on four (4) prior occasions, plaintiff has still failed to appear for his deposition.

In light of the history detailed above, which establishes that there has been a violation of both the preliminary and compliance conference orders, as well as two (2) separate so-ordered stipulations of this court, the within motion ensued. In opposition, plaintiff's counsel alleges that defendants would not proceed, claiming to need additional medical records, and attaches an affidavit from plaintiff alleging that he could not appear for a deposition due to incarceration from September 8, 2012, through April 13, 2013. Notably, this court is offered no documentation setting forth where plaintiff was incarcerated, and is thus unable to verify this assertion. In addition, plaintiff was not incarcerated on the deposition dates established [*2]by the preliminary conference order and the two (2) so-ordered stipulations above-cited. Lastly, it is now readily apparent to this court that plaintiff's counsel cavalierly entered into stipulations with no knowledge of their client's whereabouts, and plaintiff's failure to appear for his deposition on August 1, 2013, nearly four (4) full months after his alleged release from incarceration, directly violated the directive that plaintiff's deposition "may not be adjourned."^[FN1]

As pointed out by our Court of Appeals, "[l]itigation cannot be conducted efficiently if deadlines are not taken seriously, and we make clear again, as we have several times before, that disregard of deadlines should not and will not be tolerated (citations omitted)" (Andrea v Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy and Drake, Architects and Landscape Architects, P.C., 5 NY3d 514 [2005]).

Indeed, "the trial court's responsibility remains the same as it always has been: to fashion an order consistent with its obligation to bring discovery to an end as quickly as possible" (Lopez v Imperial Delivery, 282 AD2d 190, 198-199 [2d Dept. 2001]).

Pursuant to the foregoing, and with the understanding that "[i]f the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity" (Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 124 [1999]), it is

Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint is hereby dismissed in its entirety.

Date: November 18, 2013

J.S.C.