Albinder v. Crescent Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Albinder v. Crescent Properties, Inc.

245 A.D.2d 145, 665 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13029

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 145 (Albinder v. Crescent Properties, Inc.) 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

Albinder v. Crescent Properties, Inc., 245 A.D.2d 145, 665 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13029 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered February 6, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ cross motion to extend, nunc pro tunc, their time to comply with a prior conditional preclusion order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The conditional preclusion order directing defendants to produce various documents was properly enforced in view of defendants’ repeated failure to comply first with plaintiffs requests, and then with the court’s orders, to produce such documents. Defendants’ excuse, that their principal with control over the documents was out of town, is inadequate, given the time defendants had to comply, the absence of evidence of any attempts to locate this principal, and the prejudice any further delay would cause plaintiff (see, Stepney v New York City Hous. Auth., 161 AD2d 525). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Colabella, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered February 6, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ cross motion to extend, nunc pro tunc, their time to comply with a prior conditional preclusion order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The conditional preclusion order directing defendants to produce various documents was properly enforced in view of defendants’ repeated failure to comply first with plaintiffs requests, and then with the court’s orders, to produce such documents. Defendants’ excuse, that their principal with control over the documents was out of town, is inadequate, given the time defendants had to comply, the absence of evidence of any attempts to locate this principal, and the prejudice any further delay would cause plaintiff (see, Stepney v New York City Hous. Auth., 161 AD2d 525). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 145, 665 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albinder-v-crescent-properties-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack