Bordes v. 170 East 106th Street Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bordes v. 170 East 106th Street Realty Corp.

203 A.D.2d 224, 612 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3120

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

DecidedApril 4, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 224 (Bordes v. 170 East 106th Street Realty Corp.) 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

Bordes v. 170 East 106th Street Realty Corp., 203 A.D.2d 224, 612 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3120 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant and third-party plaintiff appeals as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinick, J.), dated February 18, 1992, as conditionally severed the third-party action and precluded it from offering any testimony by a witness on the issue of liability unless it produced a witness for an examination before trial.

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

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in the selection or imposition of penalties against the parties for failure to comply with disclosure orders (see, CPLR 3126; Stathoudakes v Kelmar Contr. Corp., 147 AD2d 690). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant and third-party plaintiff appeals as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinick, J.), dated February 18, 1992, as conditionally severed the third-party action and precluded it from offering any testimony by a witness on the issue of liability unless it produced a witness for an examination before trial.

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

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in the selection or imposition of penalties against the parties for failure to comply with disclosure orders (see, CPLR 3126; Stathoudakes v Kelmar Contr. Corp., 147 AD2d 690). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 224, 612 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bordes-v-170-east-106th-street-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack