Estate of Mojica v. Harlem River Park Houses, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Estate of Mojica v. Harlem River Park Houses, Inc.

140 A.D.3d 579, 33 N.Y.S.3d 693

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

DecidedJune 23, 2016

Docket1540 21302/13

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 579 (Estate of Mojica v. Harlem River Park Houses, Inc.) 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

Estate of Mojica v. Harlem River Park Houses, Inc., 140 A.D.3d 579, 33 N.Y.S.3d 693 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*580 Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered on or about October 27, 2015, which, inter alia, denied defendants Harlem River Park Houses, Inc. and West East Food Corp. sued herein as Associated Supermarket’s motion (1) to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3); (2) for a preclusion order pursuant to CPLR 3126 (2); (3) to compel plaintiffs to comply with defendants’ outstanding discovery demands; and (4) for an order pursuant to CPLR 3123 deeming plaintiff to have admitted all the facts set forth in defendant’s notice to admit and precluding plaintiffs from offering evidence at trial and/or otherwise raising issues as to those items plaintiffs admitted do not exist, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendants’ discovery motions (Gumbs v Flushing Town Ctr. III, L.P., 114 AD3d 573, 574 [1st Dept 2014]) and in determining that there was no basis to impose discovery sanctions on plaintiffs (see e.g. Sowerby v Camarda, 20 AD3d 411 [2d Dept 2005]).

We have considered the remaining arguments, including plaintiffs’ request for sanctions, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Web-ber, JJ.

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

*580 Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered on or about October 27, 2015, which, inter alia, denied defendants Harlem River Park Houses, Inc. and West East Food Corp. sued herein as Associated Supermarket’s motion (1) to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3); (2) for a preclusion order pursuant to CPLR 3126 (2); (3) to compel plaintiffs to comply with defendants’ outstanding discovery demands; and (4) for an order pursuant to CPLR 3123 deeming plaintiff to have admitted all the facts set forth in defendant’s notice to admit and precluding plaintiffs from offering evidence at trial and/or otherwise raising issues as to those items plaintiffs admitted do not exist, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendants’ discovery motions (Gumbs v Flushing Town Ctr. III, L.P., 114 AD3d 573, 574 [1st Dept 2014]) and in determining that there was no basis to impose discovery sanctions on plaintiffs (see e.g. Sowerby v Camarda, 20 AD3d 411 [2d Dept 2005]).

We have considered the remaining arguments, including plaintiffs’ request for sanctions, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Web-ber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 579, 33 N.Y.S.3d 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-mojica-v-harlem-river-park-houses-inc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack