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

This text of 228 A.D.2d 651 (Kerin v. Long Island Rail Road) 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
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).

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
228 A.D.2d 651, 644 N.Y.2d 985, 644 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerin-v-long-island-rail-road-nyappdiv-1996.