Smith v. Parkchester Apts. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Parkchester Apts. Co.

256 A.D.2d 58, 680 N.Y.S.2d 541, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13048

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 58 (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., 256 A.D.2d 58, 680 N.Y.S.2d 541, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13048 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about October 28, 1997, which denied defendants’ motion to strike the complaint for plaintiffs’ failure to comply with court-ordered disclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court, which, in directing an in camera examination of the infant plaintiff to determine her competency as a witness, effectively reversed so much of its prior order as directed plaintiffs’ depositions by a date certain, properly exercised its discretion in giving plaintiffs one last chance to comply with that part of the prior order as directed the infant plaintiff to submit to a mental examination. We note, however, [59]*59that the sanctions ordered by Supreme Court to be paid by plaintiffs-respondents’ counsel, in its order of April 2, 1997, have yet to be paid. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about October 28, 1997, which denied defendants’ motion to strike the complaint for plaintiffs’ failure to comply with court-ordered disclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court, which, in directing an in camera examination of the infant plaintiff to determine her competency as a witness, effectively reversed so much of its prior order as directed plaintiffs’ depositions by a date certain, properly exercised its discretion in giving plaintiffs one last chance to comply with that part of the prior order as directed the infant plaintiff to submit to a mental examination. We note, however, [59]*59that the sanctions ordered by Supreme Court to be paid by plaintiffs-respondents’ counsel, in its order of April 2, 1997, have yet to be paid. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 58, 680 N.Y.S.2d 541, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-parkchester-apts-co-nyappdiv-1998.