R&W Wine Bar Ltd. v. Abrams

168 A.D.2d 321

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

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

Related

Battaglia v. Hofmeister
100 A.D.2d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Knapek v. MV Southwest Cape
110 A.D.2d 928 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 A.D.2d 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rw-wine-bar-ltd-v-abrams-nyappdiv-1990.