W.S.L.S.J. & I. Weinreb v. Bogoch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

W.S.L.S.J. & I. Weinreb v. Bogoch

295 A.D.2d 108, 742 N.Y.S.2d 820

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

DecidedJune 4, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 108 (W.S.L.S.J. & I. Weinreb v. Bogoch) 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

W.S.L.S.J. & I. Weinreb v. Bogoch, 295 A.D.2d 108, 742 N.Y.S.2d 820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered or about May 9, 2001, which, inter alia, denied in part appellants’ motion for a protective order and directed them to respond to respondents’ document requests and interrogatories, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to strike the requests for “all documents [appellants] intend to rely upon in proof of their” causes of action and defenses (requests 25-36, 38-51), and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to respondents’ argument that the appeal must be dismissed because a judgment has been entered [109]*109against appellants, citing Matter of Aho (39 NY2d 241, 248). In support of that argument, respondents rely on a filed order granting their motion to strike appellants’ pleading for noncompliance with the disclosure directives contained in the order on appeal, and directing that judgment be entered against appellants. However, the order is not signed by the clerk, and therefore cannot qualify as an entered judgment (CPLR 5016 [a]). Respondents’ requests for “all documents [appellants] intend to rely upon” is improper (see, Konrad v 136 E. 64th St. Corp., 209 AD2d 228). We have considered appellants’ other challenges to respondents’ document requests and to their interrogatories and find them unavailing. Concur— Williams, P.J., Saxe, Buckley, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered or about May 9, 2001, which, inter alia, denied in part appellants’ motion for a protective order and directed them to respond to respondents’ document requests and interrogatories, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to strike the requests for “all documents [appellants] intend to rely upon in proof of their” causes of action and defenses (requests 25-36, 38-51), and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to respondents’ argument that the appeal must be dismissed because a judgment has been entered [109]*109against appellants, citing Matter of Aho (39 NY2d 241, 248). In support of that argument, respondents rely on a filed order granting their motion to strike appellants’ pleading for noncompliance with the disclosure directives contained in the order on appeal, and directing that judgment be entered against appellants. However, the order is not signed by the clerk, and therefore cannot qualify as an entered judgment (CPLR 5016 [a]). Respondents’ requests for “all documents [appellants] intend to rely upon” is improper (see, Konrad v 136 E. 64th St. Corp., 209 AD2d 228). We have considered appellants’ other challenges to respondents’ document requests and to their interrogatories and find them unavailing. Concur— Williams, P.J., Saxe, Buckley, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 108, 742 N.Y.S.2d 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wslsj-i-weinreb-v-bogoch-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack