Rodriguez v. Tiwari

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Tiwari

265 A.D.2d 247, 697 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10866

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 247 (Rodriguez v. Tiwari) 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

Rodriguez v. Tiwari, 265 A.D.2d 247, 697 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about June 29, 1998, which conditionally granted defendants’ motions for preclusion and dismissal and imposed a monetary sanction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since there is no record support for defendants’ claim that plaintiffs’ discovery defaults were willful or contumacious, and since plaintiffs’ compliance with discovery demands, albeit delayed, was substantial, the court appropriately exercised its discretion in affording plaintiffs a “second chance” (see, Hanson [248]*248v City of New York, 227 AD2d 217). The court also appropriately exercised its discretion in considering response papers where the delay in submission was minimal (see, Foitl v G.A.F. Corp., 64 NY2d 911). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about June 29, 1998, which conditionally granted defendants’ motions for preclusion and dismissal and imposed a monetary sanction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since there is no record support for defendants’ claim that plaintiffs’ discovery defaults were willful or contumacious, and since plaintiffs’ compliance with discovery demands, albeit delayed, was substantial, the court appropriately exercised its discretion in affording plaintiffs a “second chance” (see, Hanson [248]*248v City of New York, 227 AD2d 217). The court also appropriately exercised its discretion in considering response papers where the delay in submission was minimal (see, Foitl v G.A.F. Corp., 64 NY2d 911). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Wallach and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 247, 697 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-tiwari-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack