Harris v. Evans

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harris v. Evans

186 A.D.2d 454, 588 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12047

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 454 (Harris v. Evans) 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

Harris v. Evans, 186 A.D.2d 454, 588 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12047 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered May 4, 1992, which, inter alia, conditionally granted the defendant’s motion for a final order of preclusion and summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, without prejudice, unless plaintiff paid to defense counsel the sum of $2,500.00 within ten days from service of a copy of the order with notice of entry, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We find that the IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in conditionally granting the order of preclusion upon payment of a monetary sanction by plaintiff’s counsel where the plaintiff’s approximately three week delay in timely complying [455]*455with the conditional order of preclusion was implicitly found by the court to be neither willful, deliberate or contumacious (see, Scanlon v Rhodes School, 76 AD2d 813; Grace v Grace, 74 AD2d 896). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered May 4, 1992, which, inter alia, conditionally granted the defendant’s motion for a final order of preclusion and summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, without prejudice, unless plaintiff paid to defense counsel the sum of $2,500.00 within ten days from service of a copy of the order with notice of entry, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We find that the IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in conditionally granting the order of preclusion upon payment of a monetary sanction by plaintiff’s counsel where the plaintiff’s approximately three week delay in timely complying [455]*455with the conditional order of preclusion was implicitly found by the court to be neither willful, deliberate or contumacious (see, Scanlon v Rhodes School, 76 AD2d 813; Grace v Grace, 74 AD2d 896). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 454, 588 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-evans-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack