Gradaille v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gradaille v. City of New York

52 A.D.3d 279

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

DecidedJune 10, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 279 (Gradaille v. City of New York) 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

Gradaille v. City of New York, 52 A.D.3d 279 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinions

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered November 27, 2006, which granted the motion of defendant City of New York to vacate a prior order striking its answer for noncompliance with disclosure orders, upon condition that the City pay plaintiff $2,500, affirmed, without costs.

The motion court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in vacating the order striking the City’s answer and imposing a monetary sanction in its place after the City demonstrated that its earlier production of the wrong records was not willful and [280]*280contumacious and that it had belatedly complied with all its discovery obligations (see Postel v New York Univ. Hosp., 262 AD2d 40, 42 [1999]; see generally McMahon v City of New York, 105 AD2d 101 [1984]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Buckley and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered November 27, 2006, which granted the motion of defendant City of New York to vacate a prior order striking its answer for noncompliance with disclosure orders, upon condition that the City pay plaintiff $2,500, affirmed, without costs.

The motion court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in vacating the order striking the City’s answer and imposing a monetary sanction in its place after the City demonstrated that its earlier production of the wrong records was not willful and [280]*280contumacious and that it had belatedly complied with all its discovery obligations (see Postel v New York Univ. Hosp., 262 AD2d 40, 42 [1999]; see generally McMahon v City of New York, 105 AD2d 101 [1984]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Buckley and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gradaille-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack