Cirincione v. Atlantic Hylan Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cirincione v. Atlantic Hylan Corp.

57 A.D.3d 707, 868 N.Y.2d 905

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

DecidedDecember 16, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 707 (Cirincione v. Atlantic Hylan Corp.) 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

Cirincione v. Atlantic Hylan Corp., 57 A.D.3d 707, 868 N.Y.2d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of M.J. & T. Corp. (hereinafter MJ & T) for summary judgment, inasmuch as it had failed to comply with discovery orders, and the material still outstanding was directly relevant to the issues pre[708]*708sented on its motion for summary judgment (see Rosa v Colonial Tr., 276 AD2d 781 [2000]; Campbell v City of New York, 220 AD2d 476, 477 [1995]; Soto v City of Long Beach, 197 AD2d 615, 616 [1993]). Under the circumstances here, we modify the order to the extent of providing that the denial of MJ & T’s motion for summary judgment is without prejudice to renewal after it complies with all outstanding discovery orders (cf. Abulhasan v Uniroyal-Goodrich Tire Co., 258 AD2d 728, 729 [1999]). Mastro, J.E, Rivera, Fisher and Eng, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of M.J. & T. Corp. (hereinafter MJ & T) for summary judgment, inasmuch as it had failed to comply with discovery orders, and the material still outstanding was directly relevant to the issues pre[708]*708sented on its motion for summary judgment (see Rosa v Colonial Tr., 276 AD2d 781 [2000]; Campbell v City of New York, 220 AD2d 476, 477 [1995]; Soto v City of Long Beach, 197 AD2d 615, 616 [1993]). Under the circumstances here, we modify the order to the extent of providing that the denial of MJ & T’s motion for summary judgment is without prejudice to renewal after it complies with all outstanding discovery orders (cf. Abulhasan v Uniroyal-Goodrich Tire Co., 258 AD2d 728, 729 [1999]). Mastro, J.E, Rivera, Fisher and Eng, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 707, 868 N.Y.2d 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cirincione-v-atlantic-hylan-corp-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack