Imex Discovery Resources, Inc. v. Allstate Hosiery Mills, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Imex Discovery Resources, Inc. v. Allstate Hosiery Mills, Inc.

156 A.D.2d 137, 548 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15209

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 156 A.D.2d 137 (Imex Discovery Resources, Inc. v. Allstate Hosiery Mills, 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

Imex Discovery Resources, Inc. v. Allstate Hosiery Mills, Inc., 156 A.D.2d 137, 548 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15209 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Supreme Court, New York County (Burton Sherman, J.), entered on or about March 24, 1989, which granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer unless defendant served answers to written interrogatories and complied with plaintiff’s document request, together with $500 costs, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing monetary sanctions for defendant’s failure to provide responses to discovery notices. Defendant’s explanation that the delay was the result of its president’s death three months prior to service of the discovery notice was insufficient, especially because defendant failed to avail itself of statutory remedies provided for circumstances where timely response is impossible. The court was therefore fully justified in imposing the monetary sanctions. (Oppenheim & Macnow v Worth, 103 AD2d 687.) Concur—Ross, J. P., Asch, Milonas, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order Supreme Court, New York County (Burton Sherman, J.), entered on or about March 24, 1989, which granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer unless defendant served answers to written interrogatories and complied with plaintiff’s document request, together with $500 costs, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing monetary sanctions for defendant’s failure to provide responses to discovery notices. Defendant’s explanation that the delay was the result of its president’s death three months prior to service of the discovery notice was insufficient, especially because defendant failed to avail itself of statutory remedies provided for circumstances where timely response is impossible. The court was therefore fully justified in imposing the monetary sanctions. (Oppenheim & Macnow v Worth, 103 AD2d 687.) Concur—Ross, J. P., Asch, Milonas, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 137, 548 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/imex-discovery-resources-inc-v-allstate-hosiery-mills-inc-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack