Meadow Lane Equities Corp. v. Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meadow Lane Equities Corp. v. Hill

63 A.D.3d 701, 879 N.Y.S.2d 725

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

DecidedJune 2, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 701 (Meadow Lane Equities Corp. v. Hill) 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

Meadow Lane Equities Corp. v. Hill, 63 A.D.3d 701, 879 N.Y.S.2d 725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a permanent injunction, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), entered June 11, 2008, as denied their motion, inter alia, to direct nonparty First New York Partners to preserve certain evidence contained on electronic databases and to permit the examination thereof.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in determining that the defendants did not demonstrate unusual or unanticipated circumstances warranting the discovery requested through their motion (see 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Gomez v New York City Tr. Auth., 19 AD3d 366, 366-367 [2005]; cf. Scanga v Family Practice Assoc. of Rockland, PC., 41 AD3d 576, 576-577 [2007]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P, Santucci, Florio and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for a permanent injunction, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), entered June 11, 2008, as denied their motion, inter alia, to direct nonparty First New York Partners to preserve certain evidence contained on electronic databases and to permit the examination thereof.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in determining that the defendants did not demonstrate unusual or unanticipated circumstances warranting the discovery requested through their motion (see 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Gomez v New York City Tr. Auth., 19 AD3d 366, 366-367 [2005]; cf. Scanga v Family Practice Assoc. of Rockland, PC., 41 AD3d 576, 576-577 [2007]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P, Santucci, Florio and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 701, 879 N.Y.S.2d 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meadow-lane-equities-corp-v-hill-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack