Chianese v. Meier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chianese v. Meier

220 A.D.2d 264, 632 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10028

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 264 (Chianese v. Meier) 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

Chianese v. Meier, 220 A.D.2d 264, 632 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10028 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered May 5, 1995, which granted plaintiff’s motion for disclosure sanctions only to the extent of directing the deposition of defendant corporation through Mr. Click, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of precluding Mr. Meier, Mr. Durakovic, and Mr. Ferrugia from testifying at trial, and precluding the individual defendant from denying ownership of, and the corporate defendant from denying control over, the building in question, and otherwise affirmed, with costs to plaintiff-appellant.

Defendants’ conduct was obstructive to orderly disclosure, but did not rise to the level that would justify the "ultimate penalty” of striking their answer (Virola v New York City Hous. Auth., 185 AD2d 122, 124). We modify as above indicated to hold defendants to their representations concerning the unavailability of the building’s owner, superintendent and property manager at the time of the alleged incident, and to clarify the IAS Court’s apparent intention to deem the issue of ownership and control resolved against defendants. Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered May 5, 1995, which granted plaintiff’s motion for disclosure sanctions only to the extent of directing the deposition of defendant corporation through Mr. Click, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of precluding Mr. Meier, Mr. Durakovic, and Mr. Ferrugia from testifying at trial, and precluding the individual defendant from denying ownership of, and the corporate defendant from denying control over, the building in question, and otherwise affirmed, with costs to plaintiff-appellant.

Defendants’ conduct was obstructive to orderly disclosure, but did not rise to the level that would justify the "ultimate penalty” of striking their answer (Virola v New York City Hous. Auth., 185 AD2d 122, 124). We modify as above indicated to hold defendants to their representations concerning the unavailability of the building’s owner, superintendent and property manager at the time of the alleged incident, and to clarify the IAS Court’s apparent intention to deem the issue of ownership and control resolved against defendants. Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 264, 632 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chianese-v-meier-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack