National Lease Income Fund 6 L.P. v. George

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

National Lease Income Fund 6 L.P. v. George

222 A.D.2d 662, 636 N.Y.S.2d 656, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13953

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 662 (National Lease Income Fund 6 L.P. v. George) 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

National Lease Income Fund 6 L.P. v. George, 222 A.D.2d 662, 636 N.Y.S.2d 656, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13953 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered November 18, 1994, which denied his motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21 (e), to vacate the note of issue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[663]*663In view of the various extensions of time which the court had already granted the defendant with regard to the completion of discovery and the defendant’s failure to offer an acceptable excuse for his delay in completing the service of his discovery demands, we conclude that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion, which was based on the ground that his most recent discovery demands were outstanding (see, Tilden Fin. Corp. v Muffoletto, 161 AD2d 583). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered November 18, 1994, which denied his motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21 (e), to vacate the note of issue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[663]*663In view of the various extensions of time which the court had already granted the defendant with regard to the completion of discovery and the defendant’s failure to offer an acceptable excuse for his delay in completing the service of his discovery demands, we conclude that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion, which was based on the ground that his most recent discovery demands were outstanding (see, Tilden Fin. Corp. v Muffoletto, 161 AD2d 583). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 662, 636 N.Y.S.2d 656, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-lease-income-fund-6-lp-v-george-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack