Devlin v. Desamours

2016 NY Slip Op 7841, 144 A.D.3d 548, 40 N.Y.S.3d 898
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 22, 2016·No. 2242N 158432/13·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leticia M. Ramirez, J.), entered on or about March 4, 2016, which denied plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer of defendant Raymond Desamours, and ordered him to appear for deposition within 30 days or be precluded from testifying, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is within the trial court’s discretion to determine the appropriate penalty for noncompliance with discovery orders, “and the sanction will remain undisturbed unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion” (Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v Global Strat Inc., 22 NY3d 877, 880 [2013]). The record on appeal does not indicate a clear abuse of discretion.

Concur—Acosta, J.R, Renwick, Moskowitz, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.

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

Devlin v. Desamours, 2016 NY Slip Op 7841, 144 A.D.3d 548, 40 N.Y.S.3d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

2016 NY Slip Op 7841 (Devlin v. Desamours) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Global Strat Inc.
999 N.E.2d 156 (New York Court of Appeals, 2013)