Hamilton v. Francis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hamilton v. Francis

268 A.D.2d 458, 701 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 565

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 458 (Hamilton v. Francis) 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

Hamilton v. Francis, 268 A.D.2d 458, 701 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 565 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated December 4, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion, as the plaintiffs had complied with the discovery order by the time the motion was made (see, CPLR 3126).

We reject the plaintiffs’ contention, raised in their brief, that [459]*459sanctions are warranted. Thompson, J. P., S. Miller, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, 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 plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated December 4, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion, as the plaintiffs had complied with the discovery order by the time the motion was made (see, CPLR 3126).

We reject the plaintiffs’ contention, raised in their brief, that [459]*459sanctions are warranted. Thompson, J. P., S. Miller, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 458, 701 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-francis-nyappdiv-2000.