Burgos v. Makoc

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burgos v. Makoc

289 A.D.2d 437, 735 N.Y.S.2d 408, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12901

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

DecidedDecember 24, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 437 (Burgos v. Makoc) 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

Burgos v. Makoc, 289 A.D.2d 437, 735 N.Y.S.2d 408, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated March 7, 2001, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for further discovery to the extent of directing a further examination before trial of the defendant and imposing a monetary sanction of $250.

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

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing a further deposition of the defendant as to the efforts he undertook to locate certain records (see, CPLR 3101 [a]). Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the imposition of a monetary sanction was appropriate (cf., Smith v New York Tel. Co., 235 AD2d 529, 530). O’Brien, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Adams, 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, etc., the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated March 7, 2001, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for further discovery to the extent of directing a further examination before trial of the defendant and imposing a monetary sanction of $250.

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

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing a further deposition of the defendant as to the efforts he undertook to locate certain records (see, CPLR 3101 [a]). Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the imposition of a monetary sanction was appropriate (cf., Smith v New York Tel. Co., 235 AD2d 529, 530). O’Brien, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 437, 735 N.Y.S.2d 408, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgos-v-makoc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack