Merchants T & F, Inc. v. Fisher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merchants T & F, Inc. v. Fisher

11 A.D.3d 277, 782 N.Y.S.2d 909, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11826

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

DecidedOctober 12, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.3d 277 (Merchants T & F, Inc. v. Fisher) 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

Merchants T & F, Inc. v. Fisher, 11 A.D.3d 277, 782 N.Y.S.2d 909, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11826 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered August 6, 2003, which granted the motion of defendant Kase & Druker (K&D) to dismiss the complaint insofar as to preclude plaintiff from introducing certain evidence against K&D, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The sanction of preclusion imposed by the motion court pursuant to CPLR 3126 was warranted in light of plaintiff’s repeated and persistent failure to comply with court-ordered discovery. Although plaintiff after inordinate delay eventually purported to comply with defendant’s discovery demands, its responses were not in accord with CPLR requirements and were for the most part incomprehensible. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered August 6, 2003, which granted the motion of defendant Kase & Druker (K&D) to dismiss the complaint insofar as to preclude plaintiff from introducing certain evidence against K&D, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The sanction of preclusion imposed by the motion court pursuant to CPLR 3126 was warranted in light of plaintiff’s repeated and persistent failure to comply with court-ordered discovery. Although plaintiff after inordinate delay eventually purported to comply with defendant’s discovery demands, its responses were not in accord with CPLR requirements and were for the most part incomprehensible. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 277, 782 N.Y.S.2d 909, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merchants-t-f-inc-v-fisher-nyappdiv-2004.