Arnoff v. Lorio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arnoff v. Lorio

208 A.D.2d 581, 618 N.Y.S.2d 218

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 581 (Arnoff v. Lorio) 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

Arnoff v. Lorio, 208 A.D.2d 581, 618 N.Y.S.2d 218 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, the defendant appeals, as limited by her notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated January 4, 1993, as granted the branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to strike the answer pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Upon our review of the record, we agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant’s failure to appear for a deposition, despite two previous court orders compelling her to do so, was willful and contumacious. Thus, the court was justified in striking the answer (see, CPLR 3126 [3]; Fucci v Fucci, 166 AD2d 551). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action, the defendant appeals, as limited by her notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated January 4, 1993, as granted the branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to strike the answer pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Upon our review of the record, we agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant’s failure to appear for a deposition, despite two previous court orders compelling her to do so, was willful and contumacious. Thus, the court was justified in striking the answer (see, CPLR 3126 [3]; Fucci v Fucci, 166 AD2d 551). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 581, 618 N.Y.S.2d 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnoff-v-lorio-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack