Jenkins v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jenkins v. City of New York

24 A.D.3d 516, 805 N.Y.S.2d 285

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

DecidedDecember 12, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.3d 516 (Jenkins v. City of New York) 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

Jenkins v. City of New York, 24 A.D.3d 516, 805 N.Y.S.2d 285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated December 8, 2004, which denied their motion to strike the defendants’ answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record does not demonstrate that the defendants willfully and contumaciously failed to comply with discovery demands. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to strike the answer (see Ciandolo v Trism Specialized, Carriers, 274 AD2d 369, 370 [2000]; Vancott v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 271 AD2d 438 [2000]; Brown v United Christian Evangelistic Assn., 270 AD2d 378, 379 [2000]). Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, 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 false arrest and malicious prosecution, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated December 8, 2004, which denied their motion to strike the defendants’ answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record does not demonstrate that the defendants willfully and contumaciously failed to comply with discovery demands. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to strike the answer (see Ciandolo v Trism Specialized, Carriers, 274 AD2d 369, 370 [2000]; Vancott v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 271 AD2d 438 [2000]; Brown v United Christian Evangelistic Assn., 270 AD2d 378, 379 [2000]). Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 516, 805 N.Y.S.2d 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack