Torres v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Torres v. New York City Transit Authority

192 A.D.2d 400, 596 N.Y.S.2d 66

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

DecidedApril 15, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 400 (Torres v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Torres v. New York City Transit Authority, 192 A.D.2d 400, 596 N.Y.S.2d 66 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Herbert Shapiro, J.), entered November 2, 1991, denying defendant-appellant’s motion to vacate the note of issue but allowing defendants to complete discovery within 45 days which would include conducting a physical examination of plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We perceive no abuse of discretion in the court’s refusing to vacate the note of issue while permitting defendants to complete necessary outstanding disclosure, where the note of issue was not filed until almost a year after the preliminary conference and defendants claimed that due to their trial schedule and staff limitations they were unable to complete disclosure in a timely manner pursuant to the preliminary conference order (see, Smukler v 12 Lofts Realty, 178 AD2d 125). Concur —Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Herbert Shapiro, J.), entered November 2, 1991, denying defendant-appellant’s motion to vacate the note of issue but allowing defendants to complete discovery within 45 days which would include conducting a physical examination of plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We perceive no abuse of discretion in the court’s refusing to vacate the note of issue while permitting defendants to complete necessary outstanding disclosure, where the note of issue was not filed until almost a year after the preliminary conference and defendants claimed that due to their trial schedule and staff limitations they were unable to complete disclosure in a timely manner pursuant to the preliminary conference order (see, Smukler v 12 Lofts Realty, 178 AD2d 125). Concur —Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 400, 596 N.Y.S.2d 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack