Carr v. Melmarkets, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carr v. Melmarkets, Inc.

143 A.D.2d 795, 533 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10231

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 143 A.D.2d 795 (Carr v. Melmarkets, Inc.) 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

Carr v. Melmarkets, Inc., 143 A.D.2d 795, 533 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10231 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Progresso, a division of Ogden Food Products Corp., and Ogden Food Products Corp. appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goldstein, J.), dated July 20, 1987, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them.

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

The plaintiffs served responses to the appellants’ interrogatories within the time prescribed by a conditional order of preclusion. Although the appellants purportedly rejected the responses as inadequate, Supreme Court was not required to grant the appellants’ subsequent motion for summary judgment (cf., St. Agnes Hosp. v Dengler, 131 AD2d 657). Moreover, we cannot say on the record before us that the court abused its discretion when it afforded the plaintiffs another chance to serve proper responses (see, Hoffman v Dickman, 115 AD2d 638). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Spatt and Harwood, 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 defendants Progresso, a division of Ogden Food Products Corp., and Ogden Food Products Corp. appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goldstein, J.), dated July 20, 1987, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them.

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

The plaintiffs served responses to the appellants’ interrogatories within the time prescribed by a conditional order of preclusion. Although the appellants purportedly rejected the responses as inadequate, Supreme Court was not required to grant the appellants’ subsequent motion for summary judgment (cf., St. Agnes Hosp. v Dengler, 131 AD2d 657). Moreover, we cannot say on the record before us that the court abused its discretion when it afforded the plaintiffs another chance to serve proper responses (see, Hoffman v Dickman, 115 AD2d 638). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A.D.2d 795, 533 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carr-v-melmarkets-inc-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack