O'Connor v. Blodnick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Connor v. Blodnick

253 A.D.2d 862, 678 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9872

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 862 (O'Connor v. Blodnick) 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

O'Connor v. Blodnick, 253 A.D.2d 862, 678 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated September 3, 1997, which denied his motion to enlarge his time to complete discovery.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiffs time to complete discovery is extended until 30 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

[863]*863On the record presented, the Supreme Court’s denial of the plaintiffs motion to enlarge the time in which to complete discovery was an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Tewari v Tsoutsouras, 75 NY2d 1; CPLR 2004). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated September 3, 1997, which denied his motion to enlarge his time to complete discovery.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiffs time to complete discovery is extended until 30 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

[863]*863On the record presented, the Supreme Court’s denial of the plaintiffs motion to enlarge the time in which to complete discovery was an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Tewari v Tsoutsouras, 75 NY2d 1; CPLR 2004). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 862, 678 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oconnor-v-blodnick-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack