Davis v. Exxon Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davis v. Exxon Corp.

216 A.D.2d 134, 629 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6574

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

DecidedJune 20, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 134 (Davis v. Exxon 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

Davis v. Exxon Corp., 216 A.D.2d 134, 629 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6574 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered on or about August 11, 1994, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion for the imposition of costs, sanctions and attorney’s fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the IAS Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying plaintiff’s request for sanctions since the record does not establish that defendant’s delay in complying with plaintiff’s discovery demands or prior discovery orders of the IAS Court of an accident report constituted "frivolous conduct” warranting the imposition of sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c). Indeed, once the court ruled contrary to defendant’s position, which it characterized as presenting what "may be a close question”, defendant produced the report. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered on or about August 11, 1994, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion for the imposition of costs, sanctions and attorney’s fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the IAS Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying plaintiff’s request for sanctions since the record does not establish that defendant’s delay in complying with plaintiff’s discovery demands or prior discovery orders of the IAS Court of an accident report constituted "frivolous conduct” warranting the imposition of sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c). Indeed, once the court ruled contrary to defendant’s position, which it characterized as presenting what "may be a close question”, defendant produced the report. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 134, 629 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-exxon-corp-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack