Cox v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cox v. City of New York

287 A.D.2d 391, 731 N.Y.S.2d 618, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9906

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

DecidedOctober 25, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 391 (Cox v. City of New York) 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

Cox v. City of New York, 287 A.D.2d 391, 731 N.Y.S.2d 618, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered January 10, 2001, which granted plaintiffs motion to strike defendants’ answer only to the extent of striking the answer of defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation unless it appeared for deposition on a specified date by a person with knowledge of its treatment of plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The drastic remedy of unconditionally striking either or both of defendants’ answers was properly denied for lack of a clear showing that the failure to find a knowledgeable witness for deposition was willful or contumacious (see, Frye v City of New York, 228 AD2d 182). While the record is replete with delays, some were the fault of plaintiff while others were related to difficulties finding requested documents. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered January 10, 2001, which granted plaintiffs motion to strike defendants’ answer only to the extent of striking the answer of defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation unless it appeared for deposition on a specified date by a person with knowledge of its treatment of plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The drastic remedy of unconditionally striking either or both of defendants’ answers was properly denied for lack of a clear showing that the failure to find a knowledgeable witness for deposition was willful or contumacious (see, Frye v City of New York, 228 AD2d 182). While the record is replete with delays, some were the fault of plaintiff while others were related to difficulties finding requested documents. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 391, 731 N.Y.S.2d 618, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack