Stevens v. Dacion Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stevens v. Dacion Corp.

184 A.D.2d 377, 585 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8135

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

DecidedJune 18, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 184 A.D.2d 377 (Stevens v. Dacion Corp.) 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

Stevens v. Dacion Corp., 184 A.D.2d 377, 585 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8135 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered July 2, 1991, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to strike the action from the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court did not abuse its discretion in striking the action from the trial calendar where plaintiff, without leave of the court, served a supplemental bill of particulars setting forth new injuries after she had filed a note of issue and statement of readiness falsely stating that all medical reports had been exchanged and that disclosure was complete (CPLR 3043 [b]; Fultz v Benvenuti Props., 155 AD2d 794, 796; Arroyo v City of New York, 86 AD2d 521). Leave for plaintiff to serve a supplemental bill was properly conditioned upon compliance with the court’s order directing a further physical examination. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, 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 July 2, 1991, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to strike the action from the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court did not abuse its discretion in striking the action from the trial calendar where plaintiff, without leave of the court, served a supplemental bill of particulars setting forth new injuries after she had filed a note of issue and statement of readiness falsely stating that all medical reports had been exchanged and that disclosure was complete (CPLR 3043 [b]; Fultz v Benvenuti Props., 155 AD2d 794, 796; Arroyo v City of New York, 86 AD2d 521). Leave for plaintiff to serve a supplemental bill was properly conditioned upon compliance with the court’s order directing a further physical examination. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 377, 585 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-dacion-corp-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack