Lawrence v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lawrence v. City of New York

252 A.D.2d 482, 675 N.Y.S.2d 559

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 482 (Lawrence 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

Lawrence v. City of New York, 252 A.D.2d 482, 675 N.Y.S.2d 559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In two actions to recover damages, inter alia, for false arrest, which were joined for trial, the plaintiffs in both actions appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated August 11, 1997, which denied their joint motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answers for their failure to comply with certain court-ordered discovery obligations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to strike the defendants’ answers in light of the ultimate compliance with the court-ordered discovery by the defendant City of New York (see, Smith v New York Tel. Co., 235 AD2d 529). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In two actions to recover damages, inter alia, for false arrest, which were joined for trial, the plaintiffs in both actions appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated August 11, 1997, which denied their joint motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answers for their failure to comply with certain court-ordered discovery obligations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to strike the defendants’ answers in light of the ultimate compliance with the court-ordered discovery by the defendant City of New York (see, Smith v New York Tel. Co., 235 AD2d 529). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 482, 675 N.Y.S.2d 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack