Reape v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reape v. City of New York

266 A.D.2d 198, 697 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11115

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 198 (Reape v. City of New York) 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

Reape v. City of New York, 266 A.D.2d 198, 697 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false arrest, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated June 19, 1998, which denied his motion for leave to enter a judgment upon the defendants’ failure to timely serve and file an answer, or for summary judgment on the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, dated February 19, 1999, which denied his motion to impose a sanction upon the defendants, or to strike the defendants’ answer.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

There remain material issues of fact on the plaintiff’s various causes of action which preclude summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212). In addition, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in failing to impose a penalty upon the defendants for the short delay in providing disclosure (see, CPLR 3126).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false arrest, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated June 19, 1998, which denied his motion for leave to enter a judgment upon the defendants’ failure to timely serve and file an answer, or for summary judgment on the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, dated February 19, 1999, which denied his motion to impose a sanction upon the defendants, or to strike the defendants’ answer.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

There remain material issues of fact on the plaintiff’s various causes of action which preclude summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212). In addition, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in failing to impose a penalty upon the defendants for the short delay in providing disclosure (see, CPLR 3126).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 198, 697 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reape-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.