Devlin v. Desamours

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Devlin v. Desamours

2016 NY Slip Op 7841, 144 A.D.3d 548, 40 N.Y.S.3d 898

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

DecidedNovember 22, 2016

Docket2242N 158432/13

StatusPublished

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 7841 (Devlin v. Desamours) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 7841, 144 A.D.3d 548, 40 N.Y.S.3d 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/devlin-v-desamours-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack