Stone v. Speiser

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stone v. Speiser

267 A.D.2d 157, 699 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13204

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 157 (Stone v. Speiser) 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

Stone v. Speiser, 267 A.D.2d 157, 699 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13204 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered October 5, 1998, which denied plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answer and for a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in accepting defendants’ untimely opposition papers and in then denying plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answer and for a default judgment. The delay in producing the discovery material in question was of relatively short duration, and despite the failure to meet the deadline imposed by the court, such conduct did not rise to the level of willful, contumacious behavior nor was the delay due to bad faith (see, First Bank v Motor Car Funding, 257 AD2d 287, 293; Corner Realty 30/7 v Bernstein Mgt. Corp., 249 AD2d 191, 193-194). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Friedman, 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 October 5, 1998, which denied plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answer and for a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in accepting defendants’ untimely opposition papers and in then denying plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answer and for a default judgment. The delay in producing the discovery material in question was of relatively short duration, and despite the failure to meet the deadline imposed by the court, such conduct did not rise to the level of willful, contumacious behavior nor was the delay due to bad faith (see, First Bank v Motor Car Funding, 257 AD2d 287, 293; Corner Realty 30/7 v Bernstein Mgt. Corp., 249 AD2d 191, 193-194). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 157, 699 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stone-v-speiser-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack