Cirincione v. Atlantic Hylan Corp.

57 A.D.3d 707, 868 N.Y.2d 905
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 16, 2008·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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

57 A.D.3d 707 (Cirincione v. Atlantic Hylan Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ferrari v. Netrosio
2024 NY Slip Op 50581(U) (New York Supreme Court, Queens County, 2024)
Mehra v. Nayak
103 A.D.3d 857 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)