Dweck Law Firm v. Mann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dweck Law Firm v. Mann

2 A.D.3d 188, 767 N.Y.S.2d 771, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12986

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

DecidedDecember 9, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 188 (Dweck Law Firm v. Mann) 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

Dweck Law Firm v. Mann, 2 A.D.3d 188, 767 N.Y.S.2d 771, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tomp[189]*189kins, J.), entered October 18, 2002, striking defendant Mann’s answer and declaring plaintiff to have performed its contractual obligations to its client, thereby entitling it to a lien against the first $1,035,000 recovered by said defendant from her former employer, defendant First Union National Bank, plus out-of-pocket expenses, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in striking the answer and affixing the lien based on defendant Mann’s willful failure to comply with numerous disclosure orders (CPLR 3126; Emanuel v Broadway Mall Props., 293 AD2d 708 [2002]; Ortiz v Weaver, 188 AD2d 290 [1992]). Concur—Rosenberger, J.P., Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tomp[189]*189kins, J.), entered October 18, 2002, striking defendant Mann’s answer and declaring plaintiff to have performed its contractual obligations to its client, thereby entitling it to a lien against the first $1,035,000 recovered by said defendant from her former employer, defendant First Union National Bank, plus out-of-pocket expenses, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in striking the answer and affixing the lien based on defendant Mann’s willful failure to comply with numerous disclosure orders (CPLR 3126; Emanuel v Broadway Mall Props., 293 AD2d 708 [2002]; Ortiz v Weaver, 188 AD2d 290 [1992]). Concur—Rosenberger, J.P., Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 188, 767 N.Y.S.2d 771, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dweck-law-firm-v-mann-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack