Rivera v. Torah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Torah

10 A.D.3d 715, 781 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11051

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 10 A.D.3d 715 (Rivera v. Torah) 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

Rivera v. Torah, 10 A.D.3d 715, 781 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11051 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated March 17, 2004, as denied their motion to strike the defendant’s answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to strike the defendant’s answer. The record does not support a finding that the defendant willfully and deliberately failed to produce its witness for a deposition (see CPLR 3126; Byrne v City of New York, 301 AD2d 489, 490-491 [2003]; Ciánciolo v Trism Specialized Carriers, 274 AD2d 369, 370 [2000]; Vancott v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 271 AD2d 438 [2000]; Brown v United Christian Evangelistic Assn., 270 AD2d 378, 379 [2000]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Mastro and Lifson, 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 personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated March 17, 2004, as denied their motion to strike the defendant’s answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to strike the defendant’s answer. The record does not support a finding that the defendant willfully and deliberately failed to produce its witness for a deposition (see CPLR 3126; Byrne v City of New York, 301 AD2d 489, 490-491 [2003]; Ciánciolo v Trism Specialized Carriers, 274 AD2d 369, 370 [2000]; Vancott v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 271 AD2d 438 [2000]; Brown v United Christian Evangelistic Assn., 270 AD2d 378, 379 [2000]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 715, 781 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-torah-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack