Granovskaya v. Shvakhgeyn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Granovskaya v. Shvakhgeyn

175 A.D.2d 824, 573 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10946

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

DecidedAugust 12, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 175 A.D.2d 824 (Granovskaya v. Shvakhgeyn) 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

Granovskaya v. Shvakhgeyn, 175 A.D.2d 824, 573 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10946 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Igor Shvakhgeyn and Ilya Shvakhgeyn appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated February 12, 1990, which denied their motion, inter alia, to vacate their defaults in appearing at court-ordered depositions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by refusing to vacate the appellants’ defaults in appearing at court-ordered depositions (see, Pines v Muss Dev. Co., 153 AD2d 555). The record indicates that the appellants’ counsel did not make diligent efforts to secure their appearance, despite the admonition in a prior court order that the failure of any party to appear would result in that party being precluded from offering any testimony in the matter. Moreover, the appellants otherwise failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for their nonappearance. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, 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 defendants Igor Shvakhgeyn and Ilya Shvakhgeyn appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated February 12, 1990, which denied their motion, inter alia, to vacate their defaults in appearing at court-ordered depositions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by refusing to vacate the appellants’ defaults in appearing at court-ordered depositions (see, Pines v Muss Dev. Co., 153 AD2d 555). The record indicates that the appellants’ counsel did not make diligent efforts to secure their appearance, despite the admonition in a prior court order that the failure of any party to appear would result in that party being precluded from offering any testimony in the matter. Moreover, the appellants otherwise failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for their nonappearance. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 A.D.2d 824, 573 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/granovskaya-v-shvakhgeyn-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack