DQS Construction & Flintlock Construction, Inc. v. Utica National Insurance Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DQS Construction & Flintlock Construction, Inc. v. Utica National Insurance Group

300 A.D.2d 197, 750 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12848

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

DecidedDecember 24, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 197 (DQS Construction & Flintlock Construction, Inc. v. Utica National Insurance Group) 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

DQS Construction & Flintlock Construction, Inc. v. Utica National Insurance Group, 300 A.D.2d 197, 750 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie Manzanet, J.), entered April 18, 2002, which, inter alia, denied defendant-appellant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to comply with certain disclosure directives, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In the absence of any showing that plaintiffs had been willfully noncompliant with their disclosure obligations, the motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant-appellant’s motion to sanction plaintiffs pursuant to CPLR 3126 by dismissing the complaint or, alternatively, [198]*198precluding plaintiffs from offering evidence on damages (see Adzhiashvili v Joy-Lud Distribs., Intl., 283 AD2d 361; Rosario v New York City Hous. Auth., 272 AD2d 105, 105-106). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie Manzanet, J.), entered April 18, 2002, which, inter alia, denied defendant-appellant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to comply with certain disclosure directives, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In the absence of any showing that plaintiffs had been willfully noncompliant with their disclosure obligations, the motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant-appellant’s motion to sanction plaintiffs pursuant to CPLR 3126 by dismissing the complaint or, alternatively, [198]*198precluding plaintiffs from offering evidence on damages (see Adzhiashvili v Joy-Lud Distribs., Intl., 283 AD2d 361; Rosario v New York City Hous. Auth., 272 AD2d 105, 105-106). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 197, 750 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dqs-construction-flintlock-construction-inc-v-utica-national-insurance-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack