Laucella v. Grant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Laucella v. Grant

125 A.D.2d 367, 509 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62651

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A.D.2d 367 (Laucella v. Grant) 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

Laucella v. Grant, 125 A.D.2d 367, 509 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62651 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, for an accounting and for imposition of a constructive trust, [368]*368the defendants Grant and Mid Hudson Gallery, Inc. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pino, J.), dated August 1, 1985, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling them to comply with his notice for discovery and inspection.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. The appellants’ time to comply with the plaintiff’s notice for discovery and inspection is extended until 30 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

Special Term properly ordered compliance with the plaintiff’s notice for discovery and inspection of documents. The automatic stay of disclosure provided for by CPLR 3214 (b) is no bar to the enforcement of the plaintiff’s notice, as there has been no motion in the instant action which would trigger the applicability of that section. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, for an accounting and for imposition of a constructive trust, [368]*368the defendants Grant and Mid Hudson Gallery, Inc. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pino, J.), dated August 1, 1985, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling them to comply with his notice for discovery and inspection.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. The appellants’ time to comply with the plaintiff’s notice for discovery and inspection is extended until 30 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

Special Term properly ordered compliance with the plaintiff’s notice for discovery and inspection of documents. The automatic stay of disclosure provided for by CPLR 3214 (b) is no bar to the enforcement of the plaintiff’s notice, as there has been no motion in the instant action which would trigger the applicability of that section. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.2d 367, 509 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laucella-v-grant-nyappdiv-1986.