Nussbaumer v. General Electric Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nussbaumer v. General Electric Co.

292 A.D.2d 873, 738 N.Y.S.2d 918

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 873 (Nussbaumer v. General Electric Co.) 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

Nussbaumer v. General Electric Co., 292 A.D.2d 873, 738 N.Y.S.2d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Yates County (Falvey, J.), entered April 13, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion seeking dismissal of the action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: It is well settled that supervision of discovery is within Supreme Court’s broad discretion and should not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion (see, Kern v City of Rochester [appeal No. 1], 267 AD2d 1026; Gadley v U.S. Sugar Co., 259 AD2d 1041, 1042). Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion seeking dismissal of the action based on plaintiffs’ failure to respond to defendant’s second set of interrogatories and notice to produce or, in the alternative, seeking to compel plaintiffs to do so. Present — Wisner, J.P., Seudder, Kehoe, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Yates County (Falvey, J.), entered April 13, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion seeking dismissal of the action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: It is well settled that supervision of discovery is within Supreme Court’s broad discretion and should not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion (see, Kern v City of Rochester [appeal No. 1], 267 AD2d 1026; Gadley v U.S. Sugar Co., 259 AD2d 1041, 1042). Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion seeking dismissal of the action based on plaintiffs’ failure to respond to defendant’s second set of interrogatories and notice to produce or, in the alternative, seeking to compel plaintiffs to do so. Present — Wisner, J.P., Seudder, Kehoe, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 873, 738 N.Y.S.2d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nussbaumer-v-general-electric-co-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack