Kerin v. Long Island Rail Road

228 A.D.2d 651, 644 N.Y.2d 985, 644 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7406

Opinion

[652]*652It is well settled that the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed for failure to obey an order of disclosure is generally a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, CPLR 3126; Mayers v Consolidated Charcoal Co., 154 AD2d 577). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in striking the defendant’s answer unless it complied with the court’s previous direction to disclose certain records. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Kerin v. Long Island Rail Road, 228 A.D.2d 651, 644 N.Y.2d 985, 644 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7406 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

228 A.D.2d 651 (Kerin v. Long Island Rail Road) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mayers v. Consolidated Charcoal Co.
154 A.D.2d 577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)