Shenouda v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shenouda v. Cohen

1 A.D.2d 428, 766 N.Y.S.2d 884

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

DecidedNovember 10, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 428 (Shenouda v. Cohen) 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

Shenouda v. Cohen, 1 A.D.2d 428, 766 N.Y.S.2d 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of a retainer agreement, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ponterio, J.), dated July 26, 2002, which denied his motion to reject the defendant’s answers to interrogatories.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, his motion to reject the defendant’s response to his interrogatories was properly denied. The defendant provided adequate answers to the interrogatories submitted to him, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that they were not responsive (see CPLR 3133 [b]; Grosso Moving & Packing Co. v Damens, 261 AD2d 339 [1999]; Kelly v Kelly, 139 Misc 2d 1079 [1988]). Ritter, J.E, Florio, S. Miller and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of a retainer agreement, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ponterio, J.), dated July 26, 2002, which denied his motion to reject the defendant’s answers to interrogatories.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, his motion to reject the defendant’s response to his interrogatories was properly denied. The defendant provided adequate answers to the interrogatories submitted to him, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that they were not responsive (see CPLR 3133 [b]; Grosso Moving & Packing Co. v Damens, 261 AD2d 339 [1999]; Kelly v Kelly, 139 Misc 2d 1079 [1988]). Ritter, J.E, Florio, S. Miller and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 428, 766 N.Y.S.2d 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shenouda-v-cohen-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack