Phillips v. New York Pennsylvania Hotel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Phillips v. New York Pennsylvania Hotel

251 A.D.2d 56, 672 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6431

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

DecidedJune 4, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 56 (Phillips v. New York Pennsylvania Hotel) 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

Phillips v. New York Pennsylvania Hotel, 251 A.D.2d 56, 672 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered April 9, 1997, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion to vacate a prior order, same court (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered September 9, 1996, upon appellant’s default, inter alia, resolving the issues of notice and foreseeability in favor of plaintiff and against appellant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant inexcusably delayed in complying with plaintiff’s discovery demands, despite a court order directing such compliance, and even now, in support of its motion to vacate its default, fails to show that it made good faith efforts to comply fully with the required discovery (see, Jackson v City of New York, 185 AD2d 768). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered April 9, 1997, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion to vacate a prior order, same court (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered September 9, 1996, upon appellant’s default, inter alia, resolving the issues of notice and foreseeability in favor of plaintiff and against appellant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant inexcusably delayed in complying with plaintiff’s discovery demands, despite a court order directing such compliance, and even now, in support of its motion to vacate its default, fails to show that it made good faith efforts to comply fully with the required discovery (see, Jackson v City of New York, 185 AD2d 768). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 56, 672 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-new-york-pennsylvania-hotel-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack