Lacewell v. Turner Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lacewell v. Turner Construction Co.

271 A.D.2d 365, 714 N.Y.S.2d 662, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4615

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

DecidedApril 25, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 365 (Lacewell v. Turner Construction Co.) 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

Lacewell v. Turner Construction Co., 271 A.D.2d 365, 714 N.Y.S.2d 662, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about March 11, 1999, which denied plaintiffs motion to strike defendant-respondent’s answer for failure to comply with a prior conditional order of dismissal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record is at best ambiguous as to whether defendant is not in compliance with the outstanding directive to produce “duplicate original microfilms” of its records, and certainly does not demonstrate the level of willfulness that would justify the extreme sanction of striking its answer. Close supervision of the production process, along the lines that the motion court is now engaged, is a more appropriate course. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about March 11, 1999, which denied plaintiffs motion to strike defendant-respondent’s answer for failure to comply with a prior conditional order of dismissal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record is at best ambiguous as to whether defendant is not in compliance with the outstanding directive to produce “duplicate original microfilms” of its records, and certainly does not demonstrate the level of willfulness that would justify the extreme sanction of striking its answer. Close supervision of the production process, along the lines that the motion court is now engaged, is a more appropriate course. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 365, 714 N.Y.S.2d 662, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lacewell-v-turner-construction-co-nyappdiv-2000.