Phoebe T. Snow Productions, Inc. v. Purolator Courier Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Phoebe T. Snow Productions, Inc. v. Purolator Courier Corp.

126 A.D.2d 624, 510 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41756

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.2d 624 (Phoebe T. Snow Productions, Inc. v. Purolator Courier Corp.) 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

Phoebe T. Snow Productions, Inc. v. Purolator Courier Corp., 126 A.D.2d 624, 510 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41756 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for the loss of a package by the defendant, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burstein, J.), dated January 3, 1985, which denied its motion to extend its time to comply with a prior order, and granted the defendant’s cross motion to the extent of precluding the plaintiff from offering any evidence regarding certain unanswered interrogatories and conditionally dismissing the action unless the plaintiff paid a sanction of $250 within a specified time, and (2) an order of the same court (Molloy, J.), entered September 5, 1985, which dismissed the action owing to the plaintiff’s failure to pay the $250.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs, for reasons stated by Justice Burstein in her decision and order dated January 3, 1985. We further add that the orders appealed from did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for the loss of a package by the defendant, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burstein, J.), dated January 3, 1985, which denied its motion to extend its time to comply with a prior order, and granted the defendant’s cross motion to the extent of precluding the plaintiff from offering any evidence regarding certain unanswered interrogatories and conditionally dismissing the action unless the plaintiff paid a sanction of $250 within a specified time, and (2) an order of the same court (Molloy, J.), entered September 5, 1985, which dismissed the action owing to the plaintiff’s failure to pay the $250.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs, for reasons stated by Justice Burstein in her decision and order dated January 3, 1985. We further add that the orders appealed from did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.2d 624, 510 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phoebe-t-snow-productions-inc-v-purolator-courier-corp-nyappdiv-1987.