Olmer v. Coburn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Olmer v. Coburn

97 A.D.2d 697, 468 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20395

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

DecidedNovember 3, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 97 A.D.2d 697 (Olmer v. Coburn) 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

Olmer v. Coburn, 97 A.D.2d 697, 468 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20395 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Klein, J.), entered January 17, 1983, granting defendants’ motion to strike the complaint for plaintiffs’ failure to comply with a prior order of the court, unless plaintiffs served a bill of particulars responsive to defendants’ demand within 30 days of service of a copy of the court’s order, is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to provide for the personal payment by the attorney for the plaintiffs of $500 costs to defendants, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. We agree that Special Term did not abuse its discretion in conditionally granting defendants’ motion. However, in view of the somewhat cavalier attitude of plaintiffs’ counsel in responding to the prior order, we are adding, in the exercise of discretion, the further condition of the personal payment by said counsel to defendants of the above sum. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Asch, Fein, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Klein, J.), entered January 17, 1983, granting defendants’ motion to strike the complaint for plaintiffs’ failure to comply with a prior order of the court, unless plaintiffs served a bill of particulars responsive to defendants’ demand within 30 days of service of a copy of the court’s order, is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to provide for the personal payment by the attorney for the plaintiffs of $500 costs to defendants, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. We agree that Special Term did not abuse its discretion in conditionally granting defendants’ motion. However, in view of the somewhat cavalier attitude of plaintiffs’ counsel in responding to the prior order, we are adding, in the exercise of discretion, the further condition of the personal payment by said counsel to defendants of the above sum. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Asch, Fein, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 A.D.2d 697, 468 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olmer-v-coburn-nyappdiv-1983.