R&W Wine Bar Ltd. v. Abrams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

R&W Wine Bar Ltd. v. Abrams

168 A.D.2d 321

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 13, 1990·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter M. Schackman, J.), entered February 16, 1990, which permanently stayed claimants from proceeding with arbitration against respondent, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Claimants contend that the court improperly stayed the arbitration and failed to grant the extension. However, the actions of claimant demonstrate a willful failure to disclose after two court orders to do so, warranting the sanctions imposed (see, Battaglia v Hofmeister, 100 AD2d 833). Further, the delay attributed to law office failure was not sufficient to excuse compliance (see, e.g., Knapek v MV Southwest Cape, 110 AD2d 928). Concur—Carro, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter M. Schackman, J.), entered February 16, 1990, which permanently stayed claimants from proceeding with arbitration against respondent, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Claimants contend that the court improperly stayed the arbitration and failed to grant the extension. However, the actions of claimant demonstrate a willful failure to disclose after two court orders to do so, warranting the sanctions imposed (see, Battaglia v Hofmeister, 100 AD2d 833). Further, the delay attributed to law office failure was not sufficient to excuse compliance (see, e.g., Knapek v MV Southwest Cape, 110 AD2d 928). Concur—Carro, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

R&W Wine Bar Ltd. v. Abrams, 168 A.D.2d 321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

168 A.D.2d 321 (R&W Wine Bar Ltd. v. Abrams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related