1009 Second Avenue Associates v. Benenson Capital Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

1009 Second Avenue Associates v. Benenson Capital Co.

247 A.D.2d 203, 668 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 776

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 3, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 203 (1009 Second Avenue Associates v. Benenson Capital Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

1009 Second Avenue Associates v. Benenson Capital Co., 247 A.D.2d 203, 668 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Cans, J.), entered March 25, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by defendants-appellants’ brief, granted plaintiffs motion to compel compliance with items 1, 4, 5 and 6 of its supplemental notice of discovery and inspection, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of denying the motion as to documents requested in items 4, 5 and 6, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The record fails to support the motion court’s determination that the disclosure of documents requested in items 4, 5, and 6 of plaintiffs supplemental notice for discovery and inspection are material and necessary to plaintiffs action. Indeed, plaintiff did not attempt to justify its request for these materials on the motion.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Cans, J.), entered March 25, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by defendants-appellants’ brief, granted plaintiffs motion to compel compliance with items 1, 4, 5 and 6 of its supplemental notice of discovery and inspection, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of denying the motion as to documents requested in items 4, 5 and 6, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The record fails to support the motion court’s determination that the disclosure of documents requested in items 4, 5, and 6 of plaintiffs supplemental notice for discovery and inspection are material and necessary to plaintiffs action. Indeed, plaintiff did not attempt to justify its request for these materials on the motion.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 203, 668 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/1009-second-avenue-associates-v-benenson-capital-co-nyappdiv-1998.