Bielat v. Montrose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bielat v. Montrose

249 A.D.2d 103, 670 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4052

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

DecidedApril 16, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 103 (Bielat v. Montrose) 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

Bielat v. Montrose, 249 A.D.2d 103, 670 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4052 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered on or about August 19, 1997, which granted plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3103 for a protective order to the extent of setting a schedule limiting the time within which depositions were to be completed and denied defendants’ cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 for preclusion or dismissal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this needlessly protracted and contentious litigation, the determinations of the IAS Court regulating the conduct of discovery were well within its power to make and were appropriate exercises of discretion (see, CPLR 3103, 3126; Lipin v Bender, 84 NY2d 562, 570-571; Soper v Wilkinson Match, 176 AD2d 1025; Rossi v Lin, 189 AD2d 868). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered on or about August 19, 1997, which granted plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3103 for a protective order to the extent of setting a schedule limiting the time within which depositions were to be completed and denied defendants’ cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 for preclusion or dismissal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this needlessly protracted and contentious litigation, the determinations of the IAS Court regulating the conduct of discovery were well within its power to make and were appropriate exercises of discretion (see, CPLR 3103, 3126; Lipin v Bender, 84 NY2d 562, 570-571; Soper v Wilkinson Match, 176 AD2d 1025; Rossi v Lin, 189 AD2d 868). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 103, 670 N.Y.S.2d 113, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bielat-v-montrose-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack