Roth v. Pakstis
13 A.D.3d 194, 785 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15363
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 16, 2004·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paviola A. Soto, J.), entered October 1, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, partially granted plaintiffs motion to compel discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The grant of discovery in this matter was a proper exercise of discretion under CPLR 408, inasmuch as the data requested were material to the action (see Matter of Goldstein v McGuire, 84 AD2d 697 [1981]) and unavailable by other means. Concur— Williams, J.R, Marlow, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Roth v. Pakstis, 13 A.D.3d 194, 785 N.Y.S.2d 917, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15363 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).
13 A.D.3d 194 (Roth v. Pakstis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
New York Independent Contractors Alliance v. Liu
43 Misc. 3d 443 (New York Supreme Court, 2013)
Smilow v. Ulrich
11 Misc. 3d 179 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2005)