Waters v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Waters v. City of New York

178 A.D.2d 594, 578 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16718

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A.D.2d 594 (Waters v. City of New York) 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

Waters v. City of New York, 178 A.D.2d 594, 578 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16718 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Green-stein, J.), dated March 20, 1990, as, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to its prior determination striking the defendant’s answer for failure to comply with a prior discovery order.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The City’s failure to respond to the plaintiff’s demands for disclosure and refusal to timely comply with the order issued enforcing such demands were so willful as to warrant the sanction of striking its answer (see, CPLR 3126). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Green-stein, J.), dated March 20, 1990, as, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to its prior determination striking the defendant’s answer for failure to comply with a prior discovery order.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The City’s failure to respond to the plaintiff’s demands for disclosure and refusal to timely comply with the order issued enforcing such demands were so willful as to warrant the sanction of striking its answer (see, CPLR 3126). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 594, 578 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waters-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1991.