Turbel v. Societe Generale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Turbel v. Societe Generale

37 A.D.3d 187, 832 N.Y.S.2d 799

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 187 (Turbel v. Societe Generale) 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

Turbel v. Societe Generale, 37 A.D.3d 187, 832 N.Y.S.2d 799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered October 17, 2005, which, as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs’ oral motion for disclosure sanctions and sua sponte limited the trial issues to those presently pleaded, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The subject order decided a motion that was not made on notice and therefore is not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701 [a] [2]). We decline to grant leave to appeal as the record is inadequate to permit review of the issues raised in the briefs, including whether defendant’s noncompliance with the order dated November 19, 2002, compelling “all specific discovery requested in [plaintiffs’] motion papers,” is excusable (see Corr v Thacker, 15 AD3d 217 [2005]). Concur—Andrias, J.P, Marlow, Williams, Buckley and Malone, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered October 17, 2005, which, as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs’ oral motion for disclosure sanctions and sua sponte limited the trial issues to those presently pleaded, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The subject order decided a motion that was not made on notice and therefore is not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701 [a] [2]). We decline to grant leave to appeal as the record is inadequate to permit review of the issues raised in the briefs, including whether defendant’s noncompliance with the order dated November 19, 2002, compelling “all specific discovery requested in [plaintiffs’] motion papers,” is excusable (see Corr v Thacker, 15 AD3d 217 [2005]). Concur—Andrias, J.P, Marlow, Williams, Buckley and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 187, 832 N.Y.S.2d 799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turbel-v-societe-generale-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack