Tirado v. Mullin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tirado v. Mullin

154 A.D.2d 591, 546 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13521

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 154 A.D.2d 591 (Tirado v. Mullin) 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

Tirado v. Mullin, 154 A.D.2d 591, 546 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants and third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated November 28, 1988, which denied their motion to preclude the third-party defendants City of New York and Willets Point Contracting Corp. from adducing proof at trial unless they complied with their discovery requests.

[592]*592Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable to Willets Point Contracting Corp.

The record before this court demonstrates that the discovery requests of the defendants and third-party plaintiffs have been complied with by the third-party defendants. Accordingly, we conclude that the Supreme Court acted properly in denying the defendants and third-party plaintiffs’ motion for a conditional preclusion order. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants and third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated November 28, 1988, which denied their motion to preclude the third-party defendants City of New York and Willets Point Contracting Corp. from adducing proof at trial unless they complied with their discovery requests.

[592]*592Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable to Willets Point Contracting Corp.

The record before this court demonstrates that the discovery requests of the defendants and third-party plaintiffs have been complied with by the third-party defendants. Accordingly, we conclude that the Supreme Court acted properly in denying the defendants and third-party plaintiffs’ motion for a conditional preclusion order. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 591, 546 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tirado-v-mullin-nyappdiv-1989.