Nussbaum v. D'Amico

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nussbaum v. D'Amico

29 A.D.3d 449, 814 N.Y.S.2d 523

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

DecidedMay 23, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 449 (Nussbaum v. D'Amico) 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

Nussbaum v. D'Amico, 29 A.D.3d 449, 814 N.Y.S.2d 523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila AbdusSalaam, J.), entered January 5, 2006, which denied plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CELR 3126 to, inter alia, strike defendant’s answer, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although defendant’s deposition was delayed, the delay was relatively brief and was not shown to have been prejudicial or to have been attributable to willful or contumacious flouting of the court’s discovery directives. Under the circumstances, the court’s denial of the extreme sanction sought by plaintiffs, some three months subsequent to the completion of defendant’s deposition, constituted a proper exercise of discretion (cf. Williamson v City of New York, 249 AD2d 248 [1998]; Pimental v City of New York, 246 AD2d 467 [1998]).

We have reviewed plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find

[450]*450them unavailing. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila AbdusSalaam, J.), entered January 5, 2006, which denied plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CELR 3126 to, inter alia, strike defendant’s answer, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although defendant’s deposition was delayed, the delay was relatively brief and was not shown to have been prejudicial or to have been attributable to willful or contumacious flouting of the court’s discovery directives. Under the circumstances, the court’s denial of the extreme sanction sought by plaintiffs, some three months subsequent to the completion of defendant’s deposition, constituted a proper exercise of discretion (cf. Williamson v City of New York, 249 AD2d 248 [1998]; Pimental v City of New York, 246 AD2d 467 [1998]).

We have reviewed plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find

[450]*450them unavailing. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 449, 814 N.Y.S.2d 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nussbaum-v-damico-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack