Jim Waters Corp. v. Colligan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jim Waters Corp. v. Colligan

114 A.D.2d 840, 495 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53853

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.2d 840 (Jim Waters Corp. v. Colligan) 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

Jim Waters Corp. v. Colligan, 114 A.D.2d 840, 495 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a permanent injunction and damages based upon defendants’ alleged misappropriation of plaintiffs’ customer lists to their own use and benefit, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered October 23, 1984, which denied that part of their motion which sought to impose penalties for defendants’ refusal to comply with an order to disclose and to appoint a Referee to supervise disclosure.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Special Term properly exercised its discretion pursuant to CPLR 3126 in declining to impose sanctions after finding that defendants had answered the plaintiffs’ interrogatories in issue to the best of their ability (see, Giraud v New York Blower Co., 96 AD2d 828), as well as in refusing to appoint a Referee pursuant to CPLR 3104, where plaintiffs have not demonstrated a need for constant rulings and no substantial litigation was generated by previous disclosure disputes (see, Lee v Lee, 93 AD2d 221). Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a permanent injunction and damages based upon defendants’ alleged misappropriation of plaintiffs’ customer lists to their own use and benefit, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered October 23, 1984, which denied that part of their motion which sought to impose penalties for defendants’ refusal to comply with an order to disclose and to appoint a Referee to supervise disclosure.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Special Term properly exercised its discretion pursuant to CPLR 3126 in declining to impose sanctions after finding that defendants had answered the plaintiffs’ interrogatories in issue to the best of their ability (see, Giraud v New York Blower Co., 96 AD2d 828), as well as in refusing to appoint a Referee pursuant to CPLR 3104, where plaintiffs have not demonstrated a need for constant rulings and no substantial litigation was generated by previous disclosure disputes (see, Lee v Lee, 93 AD2d 221). Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 840, 495 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jim-waters-corp-v-colligan-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack