Lippman v. Goodman
This text of Lippman v. Goodman (Lippman v. Goodman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
against
Ezra N. Goodman and Dean M. Roberts, Respondents.
Roy Lippman, appellant pro se. Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., for respondents (no brief filed).
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered September 11, 2015. The order denied plaintiff's motion to compel discovery.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff appeals from an order which denied his motion to compel discovery. CPLR 3124 states that, "[i]f a person fails to respond to or comply with any request, notice, interrogatory, demand, question or order under" article 31, "the party seeking disclosure may move to compel compliance or a response." Here, plaintiff has not alleged, let alone demonstrated, that he served any such demand or request, and therefore the relief sought by plaintiff is not available to him.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
WESTON, J.P., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: July 06, 2018
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Lippman v. Goodman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lippman-v-goodman-nyappterm-2018.