Rollieson v. Hollywood Entertainment Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rollieson v. Hollywood Entertainment Corp.

38 A.D.3d 238, 830 N.Y.S.2d 512

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 238 (Rollieson v. Hollywood Entertainment Corp.) 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

Rollieson v. Hollywood Entertainment Corp., 38 A.D.3d 238, 830 N.Y.S.2d 512 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered April 19, 2006, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiff I.T.’s claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

. I.T.’s willful and contumacious conduct in obstructing and delaying the progress of disclosure may be inferred from her failure to appear for court-ordered depositions on four separate occasions (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [1999]). Under the circumstances, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion after I.T. failed to appear for a deposition on the agreed-upon date, pursuant to a “so ordered” stipulation that had indicated dismissal as the consequence of such failure (see Woolard v Suffolk County Water Auth., 16 AD3d 582 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Sullivan, Williams, Buckley and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered April 19, 2006, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiff I.T.’s claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

. I.T.’s willful and contumacious conduct in obstructing and delaying the progress of disclosure may be inferred from her failure to appear for court-ordered depositions on four separate occasions (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [1999]). Under the circumstances, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion after I.T. failed to appear for a deposition on the agreed-upon date, pursuant to a “so ordered” stipulation that had indicated dismissal as the consequence of such failure (see Woolard v Suffolk County Water Auth., 16 AD3d 582 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Sullivan, Williams, Buckley and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 238, 830 N.Y.S.2d 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rollieson-v-hollywood-entertainment-corp-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack