Murphy v. Westinghouse Canada, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murphy v. Westinghouse Canada, Inc.

268 A.D.2d 264, 700 N.Y.S.2d 695, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 347

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 264 (Murphy v. Westinghouse Canada, 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

Murphy v. Westinghouse Canada, Inc., 268 A.D.2d 264, 700 N.Y.S.2d 695, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered on or about September 14, 1998, which directed counsel for defendants Westinghouse Canada, Inc. and Westinghouse Electric Corporation to pay $5,000 to plaintiffs as a sanction for noncompliance with court-ordered discovery, unanimously modified, on the facts, to reduce the sanction to $1,000, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In view of counsel’s failure to seek an extension of the court-ordered discovery deadline until after the deadline’s expiration and plaintiff had moved for sanctions, the motion court was justified in concluding, in the absence of any explanation by defense counsel of their conduct, that counsel’s noncompliance with the court’s discovery schedule had been willful, thus warranting the imposition of a monetary sanction. The amount of the sanction, however, is excessive, and we modify accordingly. Concur—Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered on or about September 14, 1998, which directed counsel for defendants Westinghouse Canada, Inc. and Westinghouse Electric Corporation to pay $5,000 to plaintiffs as a sanction for noncompliance with court-ordered discovery, unanimously modified, on the facts, to reduce the sanction to $1,000, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In view of counsel’s failure to seek an extension of the court-ordered discovery deadline until after the deadline’s expiration and plaintiff had moved for sanctions, the motion court was justified in concluding, in the absence of any explanation by defense counsel of their conduct, that counsel’s noncompliance with the court’s discovery schedule had been willful, thus warranting the imposition of a monetary sanction. The amount of the sanction, however, is excessive, and we modify accordingly. Concur—Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 264, 700 N.Y.S.2d 695, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-westinghouse-canada-inc-nyappdiv-2000.