Cervini v. Greystone Building Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cervini v. Greystone Building Co.

26 A.D.3d 282, 810 N.Y.S.2d 49

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.3d 282 (Cervini v. Greystone Building Co.) 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

Cervini v. Greystone Building Co., 26 A.D.3d 282, 810 N.Y.S.2d 49 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson Roman, J.), entered on or about October 12, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, denied so much of plaintiffs motion as sought an order striking the answer of defendants Ju Jeung Kim and Greystone Deli and Grocery, arid directed said defendants to appear for depositions by November 10, 2004, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with deposition orders inasmuch as Kim was not fluent in English and thus could not understand the notices forwarded by counsel. Under the circumstances, the court providently exercised its discretion in requiring depositions by a date certain, or the preclusion from offering testimony at trial (see Palmenta v Columbia Univ., 266 AD2d 90 [1999]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson Roman, J.), entered on or about October 12, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, denied so much of plaintiffs motion as sought an order striking the answer of defendants Ju Jeung Kim and Greystone Deli and Grocery, arid directed said defendants to appear for depositions by November 10, 2004, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with deposition orders inasmuch as Kim was not fluent in English and thus could not understand the notices forwarded by counsel. Under the circumstances, the court providently exercised its discretion in requiring depositions by a date certain, or the preclusion from offering testimony at trial (see Palmenta v Columbia Univ., 266 AD2d 90 [1999]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Williams and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 282, 810 N.Y.S.2d 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cervini-v-greystone-building-co-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack