Goldfine v. Sichenzia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldfine v. Sichenzia

13 A.D.3d 411, 785 N.Y.S.2d 704, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15200

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 411 (Goldfine v. Sichenzia) 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

Goldfine v. Sichenzia, 13 A.D.3d 411, 785 N.Y.S.2d 704, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Catherine N. Coughlin, Terence M. Coughlin, and Artesian Abstract, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated June 3, 2003, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion, in effect, to strike their answer to the extent of precluding them from contesting the plaintiffs’ claims unless they produced certain documents within 20 days.

[412]*412Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the appellants to produce certain documents within 20 days of the date of the order appealed from, or be precluded from contesting the plaintiffs’ claims against them (see CPLR 3126; Pashayan v Corson, 306 AD2d 259 [2003]; Kingsley v Kantor, 265 AD2d 529 [1999]). Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Adams, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Catherine N. Coughlin, Terence M. Coughlin, and Artesian Abstract, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated June 3, 2003, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion, in effect, to strike their answer to the extent of precluding them from contesting the plaintiffs’ claims unless they produced certain documents within 20 days.

[412]*412Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the appellants to produce certain documents within 20 days of the date of the order appealed from, or be precluded from contesting the plaintiffs’ claims against them (see CPLR 3126; Pashayan v Corson, 306 AD2d 259 [2003]; Kingsley v Kantor, 265 AD2d 529 [1999]). Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Adams, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 411, 785 N.Y.S.2d 704, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldfine-v-sichenzia-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack