Roof v. Bogdanski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roof v. Bogdanski

152 A.D.2d 955, 544 N.Y.S.2d 755, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9843

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 152 A.D.2d 955 (Roof v. Bogdanski) 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

Roof v. Bogdanski, 152 A.D.2d 955, 544 N.Y.S.2d 755, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9843 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from that portion of an order which denied his motion for a protective order and granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery in accordance with their notice and supplemental notice for discovery and inspection. We conclude that the court properly denied a protective order. CPLR 3122 provides that a motion for a protective order must be made within 10 days of service of the challenged discovery notice. Defendant failed to make a timely motion and thus waived any objection to the propriety of the discovery demand. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Contiguglia, J. — discovery.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from that portion of an order which denied his motion for a protective order and granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery in accordance with their notice and supplemental notice for discovery and inspection. We conclude that the court properly denied a protective order. CPLR 3122 provides that a motion for a protective order must be made within 10 days of service of the challenged discovery notice. Defendant failed to make a timely motion and thus waived any objection to the propriety of the discovery demand. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Contiguglia, J. — discovery.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A.D.2d 955, 544 N.Y.S.2d 755, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roof-v-bogdanski-nyappdiv-1989.