Telecommunications Technology Corp. v. Deutsche Bank AG.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Telecommunications Technology Corp. v. Deutsche Bank AG.

266 A.D.2d 72, 698 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11635

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 72 (Telecommunications Technology Corp. v. Deutsche Bank AG.) 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

Telecommunications Technology Corp. v. Deutsche Bank AG., 266 A.D.2d 72, 698 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11635 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered June 1, 1998, which denied plaintiff’s motion to expand the scope of discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly exercised its broad discretion in supervising the discovery process (see, Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406; Lewis v Hertz Corp., 193 AD2d 470) when it limited defendants’ obligation to disclose documents regarding their relationships with nonparty consulting firms to the period prior to November 16, 1993. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the court’s order did not resolve any issues other than the scope of discovery. We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Williams, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered June 1, 1998, which denied plaintiff’s motion to expand the scope of discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly exercised its broad discretion in supervising the discovery process (see, Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406; Lewis v Hertz Corp., 193 AD2d 470) when it limited defendants’ obligation to disclose documents regarding their relationships with nonparty consulting firms to the period prior to November 16, 1993. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the court’s order did not resolve any issues other than the scope of discovery. We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Williams, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 72, 698 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/telecommunications-technology-corp-v-deutsche-bank-ag-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack