Franchi v. Mauro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Franchi v. Mauro

81 A.D.2d 905, 441 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11624

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

DecidedMay 26, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 81 A.D.2d 905 (Franchi v. Mauro) 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

Franchi v. Mauro, 81 A.D.2d 905, 441 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11624 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action based upon an alleged breach of a separation agreement, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 15, 1980 which granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendant’s answer and direct that plaintiff “have an inquest against the defendant.” Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion denied and answer reinstated. An examination before trial shall proceed at the place designated in the order dated October 9, 1980, at a time to be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by the plaintiff, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree. Striking a pleading for failure to comply with an order of disclosure is a severe penalty not warranted by this record (see Ortiz v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 72 AD2d 741). Rabin, J. P., Cohalan, Weinstein and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action based upon an alleged breach of a separation agreement, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 15, 1980 which granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendant’s answer and direct that plaintiff “have an inquest against the defendant.” Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion denied and answer reinstated. An examination before trial shall proceed at the place designated in the order dated October 9, 1980, at a time to be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by the plaintiff, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree. Striking a pleading for failure to comply with an order of disclosure is a severe penalty not warranted by this record (see Ortiz v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 72 AD2d 741). Rabin, J. P., Cohalan, Weinstein and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 905, 441 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franchi-v-mauro-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack