Copeland Coating Co. v. Royal Athletic Industries, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Copeland Coating Co. v. Royal Athletic Industries, Ltd.

122 A.D.2d 188, 505 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59521

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

DecidedJuly 21, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 122 A.D.2d 188 (Copeland Coating Co. v. Royal Athletic Industries, Ltd.) 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

Copeland Coating Co. v. Royal Athletic Industries, Ltd., 122 A.D.2d 188, 505 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for goods sold and delivered, the defendants Royal Athletic Industries, Ltd., Royal Athletic Surfacing Co., Inc., Carle Place Industries, Inc., and Joseph R. Guercia appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christ, J.), entered March 1, 1985, which denied their motion to strike the plaintiffs note of issue and to compel acceptance of their bill of particulars.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The appellants have failed to establish that their default in complying with a conditional preclusion order should be excused. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for goods sold and delivered, the defendants Royal Athletic Industries, Ltd., Royal Athletic Surfacing Co., Inc., Carle Place Industries, Inc., and Joseph R. Guercia appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christ, J.), entered March 1, 1985, which denied their motion to strike the plaintiffs note of issue and to compel acceptance of their bill of particulars.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The appellants have failed to establish that their default in complying with a conditional preclusion order should be excused. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 188, 505 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/copeland-coating-co-v-royal-athletic-industries-ltd-nyappdiv-1986.