9th Street Estates, Inc. v. Rohatycka

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

9th Street Estates, Inc. v. Rohatycka

162 Misc. 2d 502, 619 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1994 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 497

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedAugust 18, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 162 Misc. 2d 502 (9th Street Estates, Inc. v. Rohatycka) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

9th Street Estates, Inc. v. Rohatycka, 162 Misc. 2d 502, 619 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1994 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 497 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[503]*503OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Orders dated February 28, 1994, modified to the extent of granting landlord’s cross motion for preclusion pursuant to CPLR 3126 unless respondent appears at a rescheduled examination within 30 days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry; as modified, orders affirmed, without costs.

The lower court has carefully framed a solution to the parties’ difficulty in completing respondent’s deposition. There being neither clear error nor an abuse of discretion below, we can find no reason to depart from the long-standing policy of appellate courts against micromanaging disclosure. Respondent remains directed under the previous order of this court (9th St. Estates v Rohatynska, NYLJ, Nov. 18, 1993, at 30, col 1) to appear at a rescheduled examination or landlord’s motion to preclude shall be granted.

Parness, J. P., McCooe and Glen, JJ., concur.

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

[503]*503OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Orders dated February 28, 1994, modified to the extent of granting landlord’s cross motion for preclusion pursuant to CPLR 3126 unless respondent appears at a rescheduled examination within 30 days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry; as modified, orders affirmed, without costs.

The lower court has carefully framed a solution to the parties’ difficulty in completing respondent’s deposition. There being neither clear error nor an abuse of discretion below, we can find no reason to depart from the long-standing policy of appellate courts against micromanaging disclosure. Respondent remains directed under the previous order of this court (9th St. Estates v Rohatynska, NYLJ, Nov. 18, 1993, at 30, col 1) to appear at a rescheduled examination or landlord’s motion to preclude shall be granted.

Parness, J. P., McCooe and Glen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 Misc. 2d 502, 619 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1994 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/9th-street-estates-inc-v-rohatycka-nyappterm-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack