Pyfrom v. Tishman Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pyfrom v. Tishman Construction Co.

270 A.D.2d 24, 704 N.Y.S.2d 810, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2207

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

DecidedMarch 2, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 24 (Pyfrom v. Tishman Construction Co.) 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

Pyfrom v. Tishman Construction Co., 270 A.D.2d 24, 704 N.Y.S.2d 810, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about December 14, 1998, which granted plaintiffs motion to strike defendants’ answer, directed defendants to comply with plaintiffs discovery demands and denied defendants’ cross motion for a protective order, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to deny plaintiffs motion to strike defendants’ answer and to reinstate said answer, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion court erred in granting plaintiffs motion to strike defendants’ answer for discovery noncompliance because there was no evidence that defendants’ failure to disclose was willful or contumacious (see, New v Scores Entertainment, 255 AD2d 108; Berman v Szpilzinger, 180 AD2d 612). The motion court, however, properly denied defendants’ cross motion for a protective order because there was nothing unreasonable or improper about plaintiff’s discovery demands (see, CPLR 3103 [a]). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about December 14, 1998, which granted plaintiffs motion to strike defendants’ answer, directed defendants to comply with plaintiffs discovery demands and denied defendants’ cross motion for a protective order, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to deny plaintiffs motion to strike defendants’ answer and to reinstate said answer, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion court erred in granting plaintiffs motion to strike defendants’ answer for discovery noncompliance because there was no evidence that defendants’ failure to disclose was willful or contumacious (see, New v Scores Entertainment, 255 AD2d 108; Berman v Szpilzinger, 180 AD2d 612). The motion court, however, properly denied defendants’ cross motion for a protective order because there was nothing unreasonable or improper about plaintiff’s discovery demands (see, CPLR 3103 [a]). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 24, 704 N.Y.S.2d 810, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pyfrom-v-tishman-construction-co-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack