Beizer v. Schwartzben

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beizer v. Schwartzben

13 A.D.3d 327, 785 N.Y.S.2d 350, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14832

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 327 (Beizer v. Schwartzben) 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

Beizer v. Schwartzben, 13 A.D.3d 327, 785 N.Y.S.2d 350, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff has acquired certain real property by adverse possession, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered December 5, 2003, which, upon an order of the same court dated September 18, 2003, among other things, granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in striking her complaint for failure to comply with court-ordered disclosure (see CPLR 3042 [d]; 3126 [3]; Krisztin v Oak Beach Inn Corp., 306 AD2d 249 [2003]; Gonzalez v Guirguis, 264 AD2d 813 [1999]; Zirin v Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr., 216 AD2d 461, 462 [1995]). Ritter, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff has acquired certain real property by adverse possession, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered December 5, 2003, which, upon an order of the same court dated September 18, 2003, among other things, granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in striking her complaint for failure to comply with court-ordered disclosure (see CPLR 3042 [d]; 3126 [3]; Krisztin v Oak Beach Inn Corp., 306 AD2d 249 [2003]; Gonzalez v Guirguis, 264 AD2d 813 [1999]; Zirin v Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr., 216 AD2d 461, 462 [1995]). Ritter, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 327, 785 N.Y.S.2d 350, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beizer-v-schwartzben-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack