Hall Signs, Inc. v. Aries Striping, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hall Signs, Inc. v. Aries Striping, Inc.

221 A.D.2d 416, 634 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11992

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 416 (Hall Signs, Inc. v. Aries Striping, 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

Hall Signs, Inc. v. Aries Striping, Inc., 221 A.D.2d 416, 634 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11992 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for goods sold and delivered, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated May 10, 1994, as granted the plaintiff leave to renew its motion for partial summary judgment and denied those branches of their cross motion which were to resolve certain issues in the defendants’ favor due to the plaintiffs allegedly willful failure to submit to an examination before trial, prohibit the plaintiff from opposing the defendants’ third affirmative defense, and strike the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[417]*417The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it refused to impose sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126, as the plaintiff had complied with discovery orders and requests (see, Ahroni v City of New York, 175 AD2d 789; Miller v Duffy, 126 AD2d 527).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Altman, Hart and Friedmann, 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 goods sold and delivered, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated May 10, 1994, as granted the plaintiff leave to renew its motion for partial summary judgment and denied those branches of their cross motion which were to resolve certain issues in the defendants’ favor due to the plaintiffs allegedly willful failure to submit to an examination before trial, prohibit the plaintiff from opposing the defendants’ third affirmative defense, and strike the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[417]*417The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it refused to impose sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126, as the plaintiff had complied with discovery orders and requests (see, Ahroni v City of New York, 175 AD2d 789; Miller v Duffy, 126 AD2d 527).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 416, 634 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-signs-inc-v-aries-striping-inc-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack