Smith v. Parkchester Apts. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Parkchester Apts. Co.

240 A.D.2d 223, 658 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6149

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

DecidedJune 10, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D.2d 223 (Smith v. Parkchester Apts. Co.) 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

Smith v. Parkchester Apts. Co., 240 A.D.2d 223, 658 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6149 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about January 30, 1996, insofar as it struck the action from the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, and the appeal from that part of said order that denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for a protective order, unanimously dismissed, all without costs.

The striking of the action from the trial calendar on the ground that discovery was not complete was a proper exercise of discretion. That portion of the order appealed from that denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for a protective order was, in effect, an untimely motion for reargument of an earlier order directing that plaintiffs appear for deposition and mental examination, and therefore is not appealable (see, Bowen v Sherwood Sec. Corp., 189 AD2d 592). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about January 30, 1996, insofar as it struck the action from the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, and the appeal from that part of said order that denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for a protective order, unanimously dismissed, all without costs.

The striking of the action from the trial calendar on the ground that discovery was not complete was a proper exercise of discretion. That portion of the order appealed from that denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for a protective order was, in effect, an untimely motion for reargument of an earlier order directing that plaintiffs appear for deposition and mental examination, and therefore is not appealable (see, Bowen v Sherwood Sec. Corp., 189 AD2d 592). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 223, 658 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-parkchester-apts-co-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack