Newkirk v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Newkirk v. City of New York

154 A.D.2d 661, 547 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13728

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

DecidedOctober 30, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 154 A.D.2d 661 (Newkirk v. City of New York) 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

Newkirk v. City of New York, 154 A.D.2d 661, 547 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13728 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for false arrest, assault, battery and negligence, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated March 3, 1988, which denied his motion for further discovery, and, in effect, granted the defendant’s cross motion for a protective order.

[662]*662Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record indicates that the plaintiff failed to comply with the timé" requirements of paragraphs 2 (c) and 3 of the preliminary conference order of the Supreme Court, dated November 5, 1987. In the absence of a satisfactory excuse for such conduct, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for further discovery. Mangano, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for false arrest, assault, battery and negligence, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated March 3, 1988, which denied his motion for further discovery, and, in effect, granted the defendant’s cross motion for a protective order.

[662]*662Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record indicates that the plaintiff failed to comply with the timé" requirements of paragraphs 2 (c) and 3 of the preliminary conference order of the Supreme Court, dated November 5, 1987. In the absence of a satisfactory excuse for such conduct, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for further discovery. Mangano, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 661, 547 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newkirk-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1989.