Glass v. Glass, Sanders, Smith & Miller, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glass v. Glass, Sanders, Smith & Miller, Inc.

288 A.D.2d 384, 733 N.Y.S.2d 630, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11271

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 384 (Glass v. Glass, Sanders, Smith & Miller, 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

Glass v. Glass, Sanders, Smith & Miller, Inc., 288 A.D.2d 384, 733 N.Y.S.2d 630, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11271 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding, inter alia, for judicial dissolution of a closely-held corporation, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), dated December 1, 2000, which, sua sponte, conditionally struck the petition unless the petitioner’s examination before trial was completed on or before December 8, 2000.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the order dated December 1, 2000, is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal from that order is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in conditionally striking the petition since there was a showing that the petitioner’s failure to complete his examination before trial was willful (see, Wilson v Wilson, 174 AD2d 736; Adinolfi v Adinolfi, 168 AD2d 401, 403). Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding, inter alia, for judicial dissolution of a closely-held corporation, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), dated December 1, 2000, which, sua sponte, conditionally struck the petition unless the petitioner’s examination before trial was completed on or before December 8, 2000.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the order dated December 1, 2000, is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal from that order is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in conditionally striking the petition since there was a showing that the petitioner’s failure to complete his examination before trial was willful (see, Wilson v Wilson, 174 AD2d 736; Adinolfi v Adinolfi, 168 AD2d 401, 403). Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 384, 733 N.Y.S.2d 630, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glass-v-glass-sanders-smith-miller-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack