Berkeley Federal Bank & Trust FSB v. 229 E. 53rd Street Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berkeley Federal Bank & Trust FSB v. 229 E. 53rd Street Associates

242 A.D.2d 489, 662 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9102

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 25, 1997·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about November 16, 1995, which, inter alia, [490]*490directed defendants-appellants to comply with previously noticed discovery, and marked their motion for summary judgment off calendar with leave to restore upon the completion of discovery, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appellants’ motion for summary judgment was properly stayed pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f) upon an ample showing that facts relevant to the subject pleading are exclusively within appellants’ knowledge and that appellants have repeatedly failed to comply with respondents’ discovery requests (see, Simpson v Term Indus., 126 AD2d 484, 486). We have considered appellants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Colabella, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered on or about November 16, 1995, which, inter alia, [490]*490directed defendants-appellants to comply with previously noticed discovery, and marked their motion for summary judgment off calendar with leave to restore upon the completion of discovery, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Appellants’ motion for summary judgment was properly stayed pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f) upon an ample showing that facts relevant to the subject pleading are exclusively within appellants’ knowledge and that appellants have repeatedly failed to comply with respondents’ discovery requests (see, Simpson v Term Indus., 126 AD2d 484, 486). We have considered appellants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Colabella, JJ.

Berkeley Federal Bank & Trust FSB v. 229 E. 53rd Street Associates, 242 A.D.2d 489, 662 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9102 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

242 A.D.2d 489 (Berkeley Federal Bank & Trust FSB v. 229 E. 53rd Street Associates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related