CIS Air Corp. v. Express One International Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

CIS Air Corp. v. Express One International Inc.

298 A.D.2d 317, 748 N.Y.S.2d 501, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10220

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

DecidedOctober 29, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 317 (CIS Air Corp. v. Express One International Inc.) 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

CIS Air Corp. v. Express One International Inc., 298 A.D.2d 317, 748 N.Y.S.2d 501, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10220 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered September 20, 2001, which granted plaintiff’s motion to strike the pleadings pursuant to CPLR 3126 and for imposition of sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 to the extent of sanctioning appellant law firm in the amount of $2,500, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Imposition of sanctions for discovery misfeasance is a matter best left to the trial court’s discretion (see Anagnostaros v 81st St. Residence Corp., 269 AD2d 150), and, bearing that in mind, we perceive no sufficient basis to disturb the exercise of discretion here at issue. We note in this connection that appellant’s reliance on matters dehors the certified record on appeal is of no avail (see Knolls Coop. Section No. 2 v Evans Dev. Corp., 169 AD2d 690). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered September 20, 2001, which granted plaintiff’s motion to strike the pleadings pursuant to CPLR 3126 and for imposition of sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 to the extent of sanctioning appellant law firm in the amount of $2,500, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Imposition of sanctions for discovery misfeasance is a matter best left to the trial court’s discretion (see Anagnostaros v 81st St. Residence Corp., 269 AD2d 150), and, bearing that in mind, we perceive no sufficient basis to disturb the exercise of discretion here at issue. We note in this connection that appellant’s reliance on matters dehors the certified record on appeal is of no avail (see Knolls Coop. Section No. 2 v Evans Dev. Corp., 169 AD2d 690). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 317, 748 N.Y.S.2d 501, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cis-air-corp-v-express-one-international-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack