Garfield v. Done Fashion, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garfield v. Done Fashion, Inc.

227 A.D.2d 128, 641 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4707

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

DecidedMay 2, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 128 (Garfield v. Done Fashion, 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

Garfield v. Done Fashion, Inc., 227 A.D.2d 128, 641 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered on or about July 31, 1995, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ answer unless defendants appeared for deposition by September 15, 1995 and as a further condition that defendants pay $1,000, and order, same court and Justice, entered October 11, 1995, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ answer and set the matter down for an inquest on the issue of damages, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record demonstrates defendants’ repeated failure to [129]*129comply with court-ordered discovery coupled with inadequate excuse for such noncompliance (see, Mills v Ducille, 170 AD2d 657). We perceive no improvident exercise of discretion in the IAS Court’s imposition of a monetary condition in its order of July 31, 1995. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered on or about July 31, 1995, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ answer unless defendants appeared for deposition by September 15, 1995 and as a further condition that defendants pay $1,000, and order, same court and Justice, entered October 11, 1995, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ answer and set the matter down for an inquest on the issue of damages, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record demonstrates defendants’ repeated failure to [129]*129comply with court-ordered discovery coupled with inadequate excuse for such noncompliance (see, Mills v Ducille, 170 AD2d 657). We perceive no improvident exercise of discretion in the IAS Court’s imposition of a monetary condition in its order of July 31, 1995. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 128, 641 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garfield-v-done-fashion-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack