Duracell International, Inc. v. American Employers' Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Duracell International, Inc. v. American Employers' Insurance

187 A.D.2d 278, 589 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12643

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 5, 1992·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered on or about June 19, 1991, denying defendant-appellant’s motion to compel plaintiff to answer its second set of interrogatories, and for related relief, and the order of said court entered November 8, 1991, which, to the extent appealed from, granted reargument, and upon reargument, adhered to the denial of defendant’s motion to compel, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff seeks defense and indemnification from defendant insurance companies in three underlying tort actions brought against it. The IAS Court is vested with broad discretion to regulate pre-trial discovery. Here, in view of defendant-appellant’s failure to comply with the terms of the court’s previous order regulating discovery and a stipulation among the parties, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in denying the relief sought by defendant-appellant. (Boutique Fabrice v Bergdorf Goodman, 129 AD2d 529.) Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered on or about June 19, 1991, denying defendant-appellant’s motion to compel plaintiff to answer its second set of interrogatories, and for related relief, and the order of said court entered November 8, 1991, which, to the extent appealed from, granted reargument, and upon reargument, adhered to the denial of defendant’s motion to compel, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff seeks defense and indemnification from defendant insurance companies in three underlying tort actions brought against it. The IAS Court is vested with broad discretion to regulate pre-trial discovery. Here, in view of defendant-appellant’s failure to comply with the terms of the court’s previous order regulating discovery and a stipulation among the parties, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in denying the relief sought by defendant-appellant. (Boutique Fabrice v Bergdorf Goodman, 129 AD2d 529.) Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Duracell International, Inc. v. American Employers' Insurance, 187 A.D.2d 278, 589 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

187 A.D.2d 278 (Duracell International, Inc. v. American Employers' Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related