Xiao-Feng Wang v. Forty Second Street Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Xiao-Feng Wang v. Forty Second Street Development Corp.

282 A.D.2d 343, 723 N.Y.S.2d 644, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3891

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

DecidedApril 19, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 343 (Xiao-Feng Wang v. Forty Second Street Development Corp.) 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

Xiao-Feng Wang v. Forty Second Street Development Corp., 282 A.D.2d 343, 723 N.Y.S.2d 644, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about July 12, 2000, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ answers pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) for failure to comply with discovery orders and requests, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court did not misapprehend the nature of plaintiffs’ motion, but rather, specifically and accurately noted that it was one to strike the answers pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3). The motion was properly denied, since, four days before bringing the motion, plaintiffs had certified in a note of issue that there was no outstanding discovery, and the day before making the motion had failed to alert the court during a conference that the circumstances were otherwise than as represented in the note of issue. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about July 12, 2000, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ answers pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) for failure to comply with discovery orders and requests, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court did not misapprehend the nature of plaintiffs’ motion, but rather, specifically and accurately noted that it was one to strike the answers pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3). The motion was properly denied, since, four days before bringing the motion, plaintiffs had certified in a note of issue that there was no outstanding discovery, and the day before making the motion had failed to alert the court during a conference that the circumstances were otherwise than as represented in the note of issue. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 343, 723 N.Y.S.2d 644, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/xiao-feng-wang-v-forty-second-street-development-corp-nyappdiv-2001.