Martinez v. New York Presbyterian Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martinez v. New York Presbyterian Hospital

26 A.D.3d 187, 807 N.Y.S.2d 876

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.3d 187 (Martinez v. New York Presbyterian Hospital) 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. New York Presbyterian Hospital, 26 A.D.3d 187, 807 N.Y.S.2d 876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered July 1, 2005, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike the answers of defendants Roston and Alicea or to preclude them from offering evidence at trial with regard to liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s restraint was appropriate because the failure of Roston and Alicea to comply with prior orders had not been willful or contumacious (Frye v City of New York, 228 AD2d 182 [1996]; Dauria v City of New York, 127 AD2d 459 [1987]). The court properly exercised its discretion in not imposing sanctions and in granting these defendants’ cross motion for an extension of time to appear for depositions, in accordance with the preliminary conference order. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered July 1, 2005, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike the answers of defendants Roston and Alicea or to preclude them from offering evidence at trial with regard to liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s restraint was appropriate because the failure of Roston and Alicea to comply with prior orders had not been willful or contumacious (Frye v City of New York, 228 AD2d 182 [1996]; Dauria v City of New York, 127 AD2d 459 [1987]). The court properly exercised its discretion in not imposing sanctions and in granting these defendants’ cross motion for an extension of time to appear for depositions, in accordance with the preliminary conference order. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 187, 807 N.Y.S.2d 876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-new-york-presbyterian-hospital-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack