Polsky v. 145 Hudson Street Associates, L.P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Polsky v. 145 Hudson Street Associates, L.P.

100 A.D.3d 426, 952 N.Y.S.2d 890

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

DecidedNovember 8, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.3d 426 (Polsky v. 145 Hudson Street Associates, L.P.) 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

Polsky v. 145 Hudson Street Associates, L.P., 100 A.D.3d 426, 952 N.Y.S.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered March 1, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, granted in part plaintiffs request for a preliminary conference, and denied in part defendant’s motion to stay disclosure pending determination of the motions to dismiss plaintiffs complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in lifting the stay of discovery imposed by operation of CPLR 3214 (b) on the ground of the advanced age of defendants-appellants’ principal (see Erbach Fin. Corp. v Royal Bank of Canada, 199 AD2d 87, 87-88 [1st Dept 1993]; Matter of Menahem, NYLJ, Dec. 14, 2005, 2005 NY Misc LEXIS 3830, *2 [Sur Ct, Kings County]). Contrary to defendants’ contention, it is not clear that the motions to dismiss will be granted. Concur — Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered March 1, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, granted in part plaintiffs request for a preliminary conference, and denied in part defendant’s motion to stay disclosure pending determination of the motions to dismiss plaintiffs complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in lifting the stay of discovery imposed by operation of CPLR 3214 (b) on the ground of the advanced age of defendants-appellants’ principal (see Erbach Fin. Corp. v Royal Bank of Canada, 199 AD2d 87, 87-88 [1st Dept 1993]; Matter of Menahem, NYLJ, Dec. 14, 2005, 2005 NY Misc LEXIS 3830, *2 [Sur Ct, Kings County]). Contrary to defendants’ contention, it is not clear that the motions to dismiss will be granted. Concur — Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.3d 426, 952 N.Y.S.2d 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polsky-v-145-hudson-street-associates-lp-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack