Chichilnisky v. Trustees of Columbia University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chichilnisky v. Trustees of Columbia University

45 A.D.3d 393, 846 N.Y.S.2d 106

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 393 (Chichilnisky v. Trustees of Columbia University) 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

Chichilnisky v. Trustees of Columbia University, 45 A.D.3d 393, 846 N.Y.S.2d 106 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered January 30, 2007, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 for disclosure sanctions, and order, same court and Justice, entered March 23, 2007, which denied defendant’s motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion for disclosure sanctions was properly denied for lack of a 22 NYCRR 202.7 affirmation of good faith [394]*394(see Cerreta v New Jersey Tr. Corp., 251 AD2d 190 [1998]; Barnes v NYNEX, Inc., 274 AD2d 368 [2000]). The affirmation submitted in support of the motion did not satisfy the requirements of the rule in substance or form. Defendant’s motion to renew, based on its attorney’s newly prepared affirmation of good faith, was properly denied for lack of a reasonable justification for the failure to submit such affirmation on the original motion (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). We note that while the motion court itself declined to decide defendant’s motion for sanctions, the March 23 order referred that motion to the Special Referee assigned to supervise disclosure. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Buckley and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered January 30, 2007, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 for disclosure sanctions, and order, same court and Justice, entered March 23, 2007, which denied defendant’s motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion for disclosure sanctions was properly denied for lack of a 22 NYCRR 202.7 affirmation of good faith [394]*394(see Cerreta v New Jersey Tr. Corp., 251 AD2d 190 [1998]; Barnes v NYNEX, Inc., 274 AD2d 368 [2000]). The affirmation submitted in support of the motion did not satisfy the requirements of the rule in substance or form. Defendant’s motion to renew, based on its attorney’s newly prepared affirmation of good faith, was properly denied for lack of a reasonable justification for the failure to submit such affirmation on the original motion (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). We note that while the motion court itself declined to decide defendant’s motion for sanctions, the March 23 order referred that motion to the Special Referee assigned to supervise disclosure. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Buckley and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 393, 846 N.Y.S.2d 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chichilnisky-v-trustees-of-columbia-university-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack