Gonzalez v. International Business Machines Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. International Business Machines Corp.

236 A.D.2d 363, 654 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1021

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 363 (Gonzalez v. International Business Machines 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

Gonzalez v. International Business Machines Corp., 236 A.D.2d 363, 654 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1021 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Litton Industries, Inc., appeals (1) as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated November 28, 1995, as denied that branch of its motion which was to compel a proper response to its demand for discovery and inspection, and (2) from an order of the same court, dated May 8, 1996, which denied its motion to strike the plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to comply with so much of the order dated November 28, 1995, as directed the plaintiffs to serve a bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order dated November 28, 1995, is affirmed [364]*364insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated May 8, 1996, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, an examination of the plaintiffs’ response to the appellant’s discovery demands supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs adequately responded to all but those portions of the demands which were of an overly-broad and burdensome nature, or which sought privileged material (see, Holness v Chrysler Corp., 220 AD2d 721; Harris v City of New York, 211 AD2d 663; Blair Communications v Reliance Capital Group, 182 AD2d 578). Accordingly, the court properly denied the appellant’s motion, inter alia, to compel a proper response.

Furthermore, the court did not err in summarily denying the appellant’s motion to strike the complaint since counsel for the appellant failed to confer with counsel for the plaintiffs in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion (see, 22 NYCRR 202.7; Koelbl v Harvey, 176 AD2d 1040; cf, Murphy v Capone, 168 AD2d 436). Rosenblatt, J. P., Joy, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Litton Industries, Inc., appeals (1) as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated November 28, 1995, as denied that branch of its motion which was to compel a proper response to its demand for discovery and inspection, and (2) from an order of the same court, dated May 8, 1996, which denied its motion to strike the plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to comply with so much of the order dated November 28, 1995, as directed the plaintiffs to serve a bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order dated November 28, 1995, is affirmed [364]*364insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated May 8, 1996, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, an examination of the plaintiffs’ response to the appellant’s discovery demands supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs adequately responded to all but those portions of the demands which were of an overly-broad and burdensome nature, or which sought privileged material (see, Holness v Chrysler Corp., 220 AD2d 721; Harris v City of New York, 211 AD2d 663; Blair Communications v Reliance Capital Group, 182 AD2d 578). Accordingly, the court properly denied the appellant’s motion, inter alia, to compel a proper response.

Furthermore, the court did not err in summarily denying the appellant’s motion to strike the complaint since counsel for the appellant failed to confer with counsel for the plaintiffs in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion (see, 22 NYCRR 202.7; Koelbl v Harvey, 176 AD2d 1040; cf, Murphy v Capone, 168 AD2d 436). Rosenblatt, J. P., Joy, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 363, 654 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-international-business-machines-corp-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack