Isakbayeva v. Thompson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Isakbayeva v. Thompson

6 A.D.3d 497, 774 N.Y.S.2d 419

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

DecidedApril 12, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 497 (Isakbayeva v. Thompson) 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

Isakbayeva v. Thompson, 6 A.D.3d 497, 774 N.Y.S.2d 419 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, [498]*498nonparty Robert J. Walker, the defendant’s attorney, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, (Weiss, J.), dated July 14, 2003, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for the imposition of a sanction upon him pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the contention of the appellant, the defendant’s attorney, the Supreme Court providently exercised its broad discretion, to which we accord substantial deference, in imposing a sanction upon him pursuant to CPLR 3126 for his conduct during disclosure (see Zletz v Wetanson, 67 NY2d 711, 713 [1986]; Orner v Mount Sinai Hosp., 305 AD2d 307, 309 [2003]; Jaffe v Hubbard, 299 AD2d 395 [2002]; New v Scores Entertainment, 255 AD2d 108 [1998]; Taub v Wulwick, 168 AD2d 492, 493 [1990]; Miller v Duffy, 126 AD2d 527, 528 [1987]; Sawh v Bridges, 120 AD2d 74, 77-78 [1986]; cf. Bach v City of New York, 304 AD2d 686 [2003]). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Luciano and Crane, 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 medical malpractice, [498]*498nonparty Robert J. Walker, the defendant’s attorney, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, (Weiss, J.), dated July 14, 2003, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for the imposition of a sanction upon him pursuant to CPLR 3126.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the contention of the appellant, the defendant’s attorney, the Supreme Court providently exercised its broad discretion, to which we accord substantial deference, in imposing a sanction upon him pursuant to CPLR 3126 for his conduct during disclosure (see Zletz v Wetanson, 67 NY2d 711, 713 [1986]; Orner v Mount Sinai Hosp., 305 AD2d 307, 309 [2003]; Jaffe v Hubbard, 299 AD2d 395 [2002]; New v Scores Entertainment, 255 AD2d 108 [1998]; Taub v Wulwick, 168 AD2d 492, 493 [1990]; Miller v Duffy, 126 AD2d 527, 528 [1987]; Sawh v Bridges, 120 AD2d 74, 77-78 [1986]; cf. Bach v City of New York, 304 AD2d 686 [2003]). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 497, 774 N.Y.S.2d 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isakbayeva-v-thompson-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack