Mohel v. Gavriel Plaza, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mohel v. Gavriel Plaza, Inc.

123 A.D.3d 464, 998 N.Y.S.2d 337

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2014

Docket13696N 302094/10

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 464 (Mohel v. Gavriel Plaza, 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

Mohel v. Gavriel Plaza, Inc., 123 A.D.3d 464, 998 N.Y.S.2d 337 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, *465 Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laura G. Douglas, J.), entered May 30, 2013, which, upon granting defendant Highland Builders Group, LLC’s (Highland) motion for reargument, adhered to its prior order conditionally striking its answer and only modified the conditions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the motion court’s conditional order striking Highland’s answer if it did not comply with the stated conditions, given Highland’s repeated failure to properly respond to plaintiffs notice for discovery and inspection, and its failure to produce its sole member for deposition in New York (see Arts4All, Ltd. v Hancock, 54 AD3d 286 [1st Dept 2008], affd 12 NY3d 846 [2009], cert denied 559 US 905 [2010]; Cespedes v Mike & Jac Trucking Corp., 305 AD2d 222, 222-223 [1st Dept 2003]).

Plaintiff was under no obligation to consent to a deposition of Highland’s member, who resided in Israel, by video conference (see CPLR 3113 [d]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, *465 Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laura G. Douglas, J.), entered May 30, 2013, which, upon granting defendant Highland Builders Group, LLC’s (Highland) motion for reargument, adhered to its prior order conditionally striking its answer and only modified the conditions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports the motion court’s conditional order striking Highland’s answer if it did not comply with the stated conditions, given Highland’s repeated failure to properly respond to plaintiffs notice for discovery and inspection, and its failure to produce its sole member for deposition in New York (see Arts4All, Ltd. v Hancock, 54 AD3d 286 [1st Dept 2008], affd 12 NY3d 846 [2009], cert denied 559 US 905 [2010]; Cespedes v Mike & Jac Trucking Corp., 305 AD2d 222, 222-223 [1st Dept 2003]).

Plaintiff was under no obligation to consent to a deposition of Highland’s member, who resided in Israel, by video conference (see CPLR 3113 [d]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 464, 998 N.Y.S.2d 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mohel-v-gavriel-plaza-inc-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack