Zak v. Mintz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zak v. Mintz

69 A.D.3d 454, 891 N.Y.2d 280

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 69 A.D.3d 454 (Zak v. Mintz) 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

Zak v. Mintz, 69 A.D.3d 454, 891 N.Y.2d 280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

There was no evidence that defendant refused to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully failed to disclose information. Plaintiff declined the court’s offer to submit interrogatories or to conduct a continued deposition of defendant. Accordingly, denial of the motion was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion (Gross v Edmer Sanitary Supply Co., 201 AD2d 390 [1994]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Catterson, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and AbdusSalaam, JJ.

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

There was no evidence that defendant refused to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully failed to disclose information. Plaintiff declined the court’s offer to submit interrogatories or to conduct a continued deposition of defendant. Accordingly, denial of the motion was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion (Gross v Edmer Sanitary Supply Co., 201 AD2d 390 [1994]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Catterson, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and AbdusSalaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 454, 891 N.Y.2d 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zak-v-mintz-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack