Ramirez v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramirez v. New York City Housing Authority

57 A.D.3d 231, 868 N.Y.2d 65

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

DecidedDecember 2, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 231 (Ramirez v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Ramirez v. New York City Housing Authority, 57 A.D.3d 231, 868 N.Y.2d 65 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[232]*232Unlike the situation in Lewis v City of New York (17 Misc 3d 559 [2007]), the record in this case does not show that the party obligated to produce documents “ ‘has repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders’ ” (id. at 564, quoting Figdor v City of New York, 33 AD3d 560, 561 [2006]). Under the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to impose the requirements of Lewis on defendant. Plaintiffs assertion that defendant, in fact, has failed to comply with discovery orders is based on matters outside the record and therefore cannot be considered on appeal (see Walker v City of New York, 46 AD3d 278, 282 [2007]; Scotto v Mei, 219 AD2d 181, 183-184 [1996]). However, we decline to strike plaintiffs entire brief. In light of our disposition of the appeal, we need not reach defendant’s constitutional argument. Concur — Tom, J.P., Nardelli, McGuire, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

[232]*232Unlike the situation in Lewis v City of New York (17 Misc 3d 559 [2007]), the record in this case does not show that the party obligated to produce documents “ ‘has repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders’ ” (id. at 564, quoting Figdor v City of New York, 33 AD3d 560, 561 [2006]). Under the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to impose the requirements of Lewis on defendant. Plaintiffs assertion that defendant, in fact, has failed to comply with discovery orders is based on matters outside the record and therefore cannot be considered on appeal (see Walker v City of New York, 46 AD3d 278, 282 [2007]; Scotto v Mei, 219 AD2d 181, 183-184 [1996]). However, we decline to strike plaintiffs entire brief. In light of our disposition of the appeal, we need not reach defendant’s constitutional argument. Concur — Tom, J.P., Nardelli, McGuire, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 231, 868 N.Y.2d 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack