Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Michelson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Michelson

283 A.D.2d 311, 724 N.Y.S.2d 843, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5363

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

DecidedMay 22, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 311 (Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Michelson) 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

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Michelson, 283 A.D.2d 311, 724 N.Y.S.2d 843, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5363 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered on or about April 3, 2000, which vacated a default judgment, previously entered against defendant upon his failure to appear at a compliance conference, on the conditions that he be precluded from conducting any further disclosure, that his counterclaims be stricken and that costs of $500 and a previously imposed sanction of $500 be paid within 10 days, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The conditions were a proper exercise of discretion in view of defendant’s longstanding dilatory conduct in responding to and initiating disclosure and not attending conferences (see Glasburgh v Port Auth., 193 AD2d 441), and his failure to show that his counterclaims are meritorious. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Andrias, Rubin and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered on or about April 3, 2000, which vacated a default judgment, previously entered against defendant upon his failure to appear at a compliance conference, on the conditions that he be precluded from conducting any further disclosure, that his counterclaims be stricken and that costs of $500 and a previously imposed sanction of $500 be paid within 10 days, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The conditions were a proper exercise of discretion in view of defendant’s longstanding dilatory conduct in responding to and initiating disclosure and not attending conferences (see Glasburgh v Port Auth., 193 AD2d 441), and his failure to show that his counterclaims are meritorious. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Andrias, Rubin and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 311, 724 N.Y.S.2d 843, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merrill-lynch-pierce-fenner-smith-v-michelson-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack