Salrex Investment, Inc. v. M. Slavin & Sons, Ltd.

180 A.D.2d 541, 580 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2659

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol H. Arber, J.), entered June 3, 1991, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint unless plaintiff complied with a prior order directing production of documents within 20 days, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The LAS court did not abuse its discretion in permitting plaintiff additional time to comply with defendant’s notice to produce (see, Siebert v 60 Sutton Corp., 99 AD2d 950), the record containing sufficient indications that plaintiff’s conduct was not willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (Dauria v City of New York, 127 AD2d 459). Plaintiff’s production of documents along with its opposition papers, albeit tardy, represents something less than the " '[ejxtreme conduct * * * required before imposition of the ultimate penalty’ ” (Ungar v Lesser, 152 AD2d 510). Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Ross, JJ.

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

Salrex Investment, Inc. v. M. Slavin & Sons, Ltd., 180 A.D.2d 541, 580 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2659 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

180 A.D.2d 541 (Salrex Investment, Inc. v. M. Slavin & Sons, Ltd.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Siebert v. 60 Sutton Corp.
99 A.D.2d 950 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Dauria v. City of New York
127 A.D.2d 459 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Ungar v. Lesser
152 A.D.2d 510 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)