In re the Estate of Cohn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Cohn

15 A.D.3d 655, 789 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2030

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 15 A.D.3d 655 (In re the Estate of Cohn) 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

In re the Estate of Cohn, 15 A.D.3d 655, 789 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2030 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and for an accounting, which was transferred from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, the defendants appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Riordan, J.), dated January 7, 2004, which, among other things, granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to strike their answer pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to strike the defendants’ answer pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3), since the defendants repeatedly failed to comply with court orders with respect to discovery (see Bates v Baez, 299 AD2d 382 [2002]; Patterson v Greater N.Y. Corp. of Seventh Day Adventists, 284 AJD2d 382 [2001]; Town of Southampton v Salten, 186 AD2d 796 [1992]). Prudenti, EJ., Schmidt, Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, 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 breach of fiduciary duty and for an accounting, which was transferred from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, the defendants appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Riordan, J.), dated January 7, 2004, which, among other things, granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to strike their answer pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to strike the defendants’ answer pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3), since the defendants repeatedly failed to comply with court orders with respect to discovery (see Bates v Baez, 299 AD2d 382 [2002]; Patterson v Greater N.Y. Corp. of Seventh Day Adventists, 284 AJD2d 382 [2001]; Town of Southampton v Salten, 186 AD2d 796 [1992]). Prudenti, EJ., Schmidt, Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 655, 789 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-cohn-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack