Ford v. J.R.D. Management Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ford v. J.R.D. Management Corp.

238 A.D.2d 307, 656 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3431

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

DecidedApril 7, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 307 (Ford v. J.R.D. Management Corp.) 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

Ford v. J.R.D. Management Corp., 238 A.D.2d 307, 656 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Wing Tung Wong, doing business as Phoenix Gift Shop, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated July 3, 1996, as denied his motion to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it refused to strike the case from the trial calendar based upon the appellant’s allegation that discovery had not yet been completed (see, Tsikos v Ottas, 233 AD2d 389; see also, Matter of Long Is. Light. Co. v Assessor of Town of Brookhaven, 122 AD2d 794). The appellant received substantially all of the discovery requested, and that the discovery which had not been made was due to the appellant’s own inaction. Bracken, J. P., Friedmann," Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Wing Tung Wong, doing business as Phoenix Gift Shop, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated July 3, 1996, as denied his motion to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it refused to strike the case from the trial calendar based upon the appellant’s allegation that discovery had not yet been completed (see, Tsikos v Ottas, 233 AD2d 389; see also, Matter of Long Is. Light. Co. v Assessor of Town of Brookhaven, 122 AD2d 794). The appellant received substantially all of the discovery requested, and that the discovery which had not been made was due to the appellant’s own inaction. Bracken, J. P., Friedmann," Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 307, 656 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-v-jrd-management-corp-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack