Behljulhevic v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Behljulhevic v. City of New York

2017 NY Slip Op 4912, 151 A.D.3d 579, 54 N.Y.S.3d 285

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

DecidedJune 15, 2017

Docket4286N 161437/13

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4912 (Behljulhevic v. City of New York) 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

Behljulhevic v. City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 4912, 151 A.D.3d 579, 54 N.Y.S.3d 285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered April 12, 2016, which, in this action for personal injuries, denied the motion of defendant Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed) to vacate the note of issue and strike the matter from the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*580 In this discovery dispute, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion to vacate. By stipulating at the October 20, 2015 compliance conference that all discovery was complete, Con Ed lost its entitlement to the information plaintiff stated in his April 6, 2015 response that he would provide under separate cover (see Stolowski v 234 E. 178th St LLC, 104 AD3d 569, 570 [1st Dept 2013]; Chichilnisky v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of N.Y., 52 AD3d 206 [2008]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Baniels and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered April 12, 2016, which, in this action for personal injuries, denied the motion of defendant Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed) to vacate the note of issue and strike the matter from the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*580 In this discovery dispute, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion to vacate. By stipulating at the October 20, 2015 compliance conference that all discovery was complete, Con Ed lost its entitlement to the information plaintiff stated in his April 6, 2015 response that he would provide under separate cover (see Stolowski v 234 E. 178th St LLC, 104 AD3d 569, 570 [1st Dept 2013]; Chichilnisky v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of N.Y., 52 AD3d 206 [2008]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Baniels and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4912, 151 A.D.3d 579, 54 N.Y.S.3d 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/behljulhevic-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack