Blay v. Frost

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blay v. Frost

126 A.D.3d 659, 2 N.Y.S.3d 373

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

DecidedMarch 4, 2015

Docket2014-04747

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 126 A.D.3d 659 (Blay v. Frost) 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

Blay v. Frost, 126 A.D.3d 659, 2 N.Y.S.3d 373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

*660 In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pfau, J.), dated April 18, 2014, as denied that branch of his motion which was pursuant to CPLR 2004, in effect, to extend the time in which to conduct his deposition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In exercising its discretion to grant an extension of time pursuant to CPLR 2004, a court may consider such factors as the length of the delay, the reason or excuse for the delay, and any prejudice to the opponent of the motion (see Tewari v Tsoutsouras, 75 NY2d 1, 11-12 [1989]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was, in effect, to extend the time in which to conduct his deposition, since the plaintiffs own failure to comply with discovery demands hampered the defendant Nancy Gordon Frost’s ability to conduct his deposition. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to show good cause for the past delay and that Frost would not be prejudiced as a result of that delay (see Dhaliwal v Long Boat Taxi, 305 AD2d 449, 449 [2003]; Carota v Massapequa Union Free School Dist., 272 AD2d 428, 428 [2000]; Versatile Furniture Prods. v 32-8 Maujer Realty, 97 AD2d 463, 463 [1983]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Dickerson and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

*660 In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pfau, J.), dated April 18, 2014, as denied that branch of his motion which was pursuant to CPLR 2004, in effect, to extend the time in which to conduct his deposition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In exercising its discretion to grant an extension of time pursuant to CPLR 2004, a court may consider such factors as the length of the delay, the reason or excuse for the delay, and any prejudice to the opponent of the motion (see Tewari v Tsoutsouras, 75 NY2d 1, 11-12 [1989]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was, in effect, to extend the time in which to conduct his deposition, since the plaintiffs own failure to comply with discovery demands hampered the defendant Nancy Gordon Frost’s ability to conduct his deposition. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to show good cause for the past delay and that Frost would not be prejudiced as a result of that delay (see Dhaliwal v Long Boat Taxi, 305 AD2d 449, 449 [2003]; Carota v Massapequa Union Free School Dist., 272 AD2d 428, 428 [2000]; Versatile Furniture Prods. v 32-8 Maujer Realty, 97 AD2d 463, 463 [1983]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Dickerson and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 659, 2 N.Y.S.3d 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blay-v-frost-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack