Heller v. Mutual Marine Office, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Heller v. Mutual Marine Office, Inc.

78 A.D.2d 786, 433 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13438

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.2d 786 (Heller v. Mutual Marine Office, 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

Heller v. Mutual Marine Office, Inc., 78 A.D.2d 786, 433 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13438 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 11, 1980, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion to compel plaintiff-respondent to give responsive answers to defendants’ interrogatories, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and the exercise of discretion, and motion granted, with costs. Defendants served written interrogatories upon plaintiff, who ignored them. He failed to either answer or object. No motion to strike (CPLR 3133) or for a protective order (CPLR 3103) was made. Defendants then moved to compel plaintiff to file answers to the interrogatories, and Special Term ordered plaintiff to answer without prejudice to making objection as to the propriety of the questions. Plaintiff ignored Special Term’s order. He defaulted in answering and made no motion for a protective order. Defendants then moved for an order dismissing the complaint, etc., which was denied upon plaintiff’s representation that answers to the interrogatories would be served within three weeks. Plaintiff served answers (five months after the original service of the interrogatories) which, however, were largely not responsive and were evasive. Defendants thereupon moved to compel plaintiff to serve responsive answers, and defendants appealed the order denying that motion. Plaintiff’s cavalier conduct should not be rewarded. His belated purported answers, which followed his total disregard of Special Term’s orders, warrant reversal and the granting of defendants’ motion in its entirety, with costs. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross, Yesawich and Carro, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 11, 1980, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion to compel plaintiff-respondent to give responsive answers to defendants’ interrogatories, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and the exercise of discretion, and motion granted, with costs. Defendants served written interrogatories upon plaintiff, who ignored them. He failed to either answer or object. No motion to strike (CPLR 3133) or for a protective order (CPLR 3103) was made. Defendants then moved to compel plaintiff to file answers to the interrogatories, and Special Term ordered plaintiff to answer without prejudice to making objection as to the propriety of the questions. Plaintiff ignored Special Term’s order. He defaulted in answering and made no motion for a protective order. Defendants then moved for an order dismissing the complaint, etc., which was denied upon plaintiff’s representation that answers to the interrogatories would be served within three weeks. Plaintiff served answers (five months after the original service of the interrogatories) which, however, were largely not responsive and were evasive. Defendants thereupon moved to compel plaintiff to serve responsive answers, and defendants appealed the order denying that motion. Plaintiff’s cavalier conduct should not be rewarded. His belated purported answers, which followed his total disregard of Special Term’s orders, warrant reversal and the granting of defendants’ motion in its entirety, with costs. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross, Yesawich and Carro, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 786, 433 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heller-v-mutual-marine-office-inc-nyappdiv-1980.