Martinez v. Goldrose Management, Inc.

49 A.D.3d 466, 853 N.Y.2d 558
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 27, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 466 (Martinez v. Goldrose Management, Inc.) 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
Martinez v. Goldrose Management, Inc., 49 A.D.3d 466, 853 N.Y.2d 558 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

The order resolving against defendant the issue of notice was unwarranted. Plaintiff did not show that defendant’s delay in complying with her demand for the last known home address of one of defendant’s former employees, who had already been deposed by plaintiff while still in defendant’s employ, was part of a pattern of deliberate, contumacious delay (see Tsai v Hernandez, 284 AD2d 116, 117 [2001]). The second order on appeal does not affect a substantial right and is not otherwise appeal-able as of right (see Marriott Intl. v Lonny’s Hacking Corp., 262 AD2d 10, 11 [1999]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gonzalez, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Related

Sherman v. Zampella
2025 NY Slip Op 06397 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Francis v. Prusinski
143 A.D.3d 1135 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Young v. City of New York
104 A.D.3d 452 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 A.D.3d 466, 853 N.Y.2d 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-goldrose-management-inc-nyappdiv-2008.