Lehman Government Securities, Inc. v. Enhanced Treasury Returns Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lehman Government Securities, Inc. v. Enhanced Treasury Returns Corp.

216 A.D.2d 255, 629 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7107

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

DecidedJune 29, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 255 (Lehman Government Securities, Inc. v. Enhanced Treasury Returns Corp.) 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

Lehman Government Securities, Inc. v. Enhanced Treasury Returns Corp., 216 A.D.2d 255, 629 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered January 12, 1995, which struck defendant’s answer as a sanction for nondisclosure, found for plaintiffs on liability as a matter of law and directed a Referee’s inquest on damages, as modified by an order of the same court and Justice, entered February 10, 1995, which reinstated defendant’s counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs. Appeals from orders of the same court and Justice, entered on or about February 10, 1995, which denied defendant’s motions for a protective order and to vacate plaintiffs’ note of issue, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

Plaintiffs were repeatedly forced to seek court intervention relative to discovery. More than once, the IAS Court directed the deposition of defendant’s witness and the provision of the disputed information. Only at the eleventh hour did defendant first assert its dubious claim that the information was privileged. Not until faced with the immediate possibility of an order striking the answering pleadings did defendant protest on the ground that there was practical difficulty in producing the witness and the disputed information, and then its counsel was unable to be consistent about the whereabouts of the witness. Under these circumstances, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to strike defendant’s pleadings (see generally, Lowitt v Korelitz, 152 AD2d 506, 507).

[256]*256The appeals from the second and third orders are moot. The reasons given for striking plaintiffs’ note of issue no longer matter now that there will be no trial on liability, nor do the reasons given for not requiring disclosure of the allegedly confidential information. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered January 12, 1995, which struck defendant’s answer as a sanction for nondisclosure, found for plaintiffs on liability as a matter of law and directed a Referee’s inquest on damages, as modified by an order of the same court and Justice, entered February 10, 1995, which reinstated defendant’s counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs. Appeals from orders of the same court and Justice, entered on or about February 10, 1995, which denied defendant’s motions for a protective order and to vacate plaintiffs’ note of issue, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

Plaintiffs were repeatedly forced to seek court intervention relative to discovery. More than once, the IAS Court directed the deposition of defendant’s witness and the provision of the disputed information. Only at the eleventh hour did defendant first assert its dubious claim that the information was privileged. Not until faced with the immediate possibility of an order striking the answering pleadings did defendant protest on the ground that there was practical difficulty in producing the witness and the disputed information, and then its counsel was unable to be consistent about the whereabouts of the witness. Under these circumstances, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to strike defendant’s pleadings (see generally, Lowitt v Korelitz, 152 AD2d 506, 507).

[256]*256The appeals from the second and third orders are moot. The reasons given for striking plaintiffs’ note of issue no longer matter now that there will be no trial on liability, nor do the reasons given for not requiring disclosure of the allegedly confidential information. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 255, 629 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lehman-government-securities-inc-v-enhanced-treasury-returns-corp-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack