Belkin v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Belkin v. New York City Transit Authority

265 A.D.2d 178, 696 N.Y.S.2d 140

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 178 (Belkin v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Belkin v. New York City Transit Authority, 265 A.D.2d 178, 696 N.Y.S.2d 140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered April 27, 1999, which, in an action against a property owner for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a slip and fall, denied fourth-party defendant-appellant subcontractor’s motion to sever the fourth-party action brought against it by third-party defendant-respondent general contractor, and directed completion of all disclosure within 20 days, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant claims that its joinder as a fourth-party defendant at or about the time plaintiff filed her note of issue, the award of a trial preference to plaintiff and motion practice concerning [179]*179the scope of the fourth-party complaint deprived it of a fair opportunity to conduct disclosure, and that the 20 days it was given to complete disclosure is inadequate. However, we find that it was well within the discretion of the IAS Court to deny appellant a severance of the fourth-party action absent a reasonable explanation why it did not seek to conduct disclosure during the five and a half months between service of its answer and the making of its motion for a severance (see, Schein v Sea Shore Marina Props. Corp., 118 AD2d 767). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered April 27, 1999, which, in an action against a property owner for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a slip and fall, denied fourth-party defendant-appellant subcontractor’s motion to sever the fourth-party action brought against it by third-party defendant-respondent general contractor, and directed completion of all disclosure within 20 days, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant claims that its joinder as a fourth-party defendant at or about the time plaintiff filed her note of issue, the award of a trial preference to plaintiff and motion practice concerning [179]*179the scope of the fourth-party complaint deprived it of a fair opportunity to conduct disclosure, and that the 20 days it was given to complete disclosure is inadequate. However, we find that it was well within the discretion of the IAS Court to deny appellant a severance of the fourth-party action absent a reasonable explanation why it did not seek to conduct disclosure during the five and a half months between service of its answer and the making of its motion for a severance (see, Schein v Sea Shore Marina Props. Corp., 118 AD2d 767). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 178, 696 N.Y.S.2d 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belkin-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack