ATC Healthcare, Inc. v. Goldstein Golub Kessler, LLP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

ATC Healthcare, Inc. v. Goldstein Golub Kessler, LLP

92 A.D.3d 820, 938 N.Y.2d 820

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 92 A.D.3d 820 (ATC Healthcare, Inc. v. Goldstein Golub Kessler, LLP) 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

ATC Healthcare, Inc. v. Goldstein Golub Kessler, LLP, 92 A.D.3d 820, 938 N.Y.2d 820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The trial court is vested with broad discretion over the management of discovery and its determinations will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see 306 [821]*821Rutledge, LLC v City of New York, 90 AD3d 1026 [2011]; Clark v Halmar Equities, Inc., 88 AD3d 940 [2011]). Under the circumstances of this case, we discern no basis to disturb the Supreme Court’s discretionary determination to apportion the costs of scanning the plaintiffs document production into a litigation database at 40% to the plaintiff and 60% to the defendant.

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit.

The defendant’s remaining contention is raised for the first time on appeal and, thus, is not properly before this Court. Balkin, J.E, Dickerson, Belen and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

The trial court is vested with broad discretion over the management of discovery and its determinations will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion (see 306 [821]*821Rutledge, LLC v City of New York, 90 AD3d 1026 [2011]; Clark v Halmar Equities, Inc., 88 AD3d 940 [2011]). Under the circumstances of this case, we discern no basis to disturb the Supreme Court’s discretionary determination to apportion the costs of scanning the plaintiffs document production into a litigation database at 40% to the plaintiff and 60% to the defendant.

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit.

The defendant’s remaining contention is raised for the first time on appeal and, thus, is not properly before this Court. Balkin, J.E, Dickerson, Belen and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 820, 938 N.Y.2d 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atc-healthcare-inc-v-goldstein-golub-kessler-llp-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack