Jimenez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jimenez v. City of New York

290 A.D.2d 321, 736 N.Y.S.2d 219, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 431

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 290 A.D.2d 321 (Jimenez 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

Jimenez v. City of New York, 290 A.D.2d 321, 736 N.Y.S.2d 219, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered October 25, 2000, which granted defendant City’s motion insofar as to extend its time to comply with the same court’s December 9, 1999 conditional discovery order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of the reasonable excuse provided by defendant City for failing timely to comply with court-ordered discovery, the strong public policy favoring resolution of disputes on their merits, the lack of prejudice to plaintiff, and the absence of any willful or contumacious conduct on the City’s part, the motion court properly exercised its discretion by extending the City’s time for compliance (see, Green v Mohamed, 275 AD2d 599). Concur — Williams, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger, Wallach and Mar-low, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered October 25, 2000, which granted defendant City’s motion insofar as to extend its time to comply with the same court’s December 9, 1999 conditional discovery order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of the reasonable excuse provided by defendant City for failing timely to comply with court-ordered discovery, the strong public policy favoring resolution of disputes on their merits, the lack of prejudice to plaintiff, and the absence of any willful or contumacious conduct on the City’s part, the motion court properly exercised its discretion by extending the City’s time for compliance (see, Green v Mohamed, 275 AD2d 599). Concur — Williams, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger, Wallach and Mar-low, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 321, 736 N.Y.S.2d 219, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimenez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack