Bay Islip Associates v. State
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
—In an eminent domain proceeding, the State of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Qourt of Claims (Nadel, J.), dated September 29, 2000, as denied that branch of its motion which was to compel the claimant to respond to interrogatories 9, 10, and 17.
*523Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellant’s motion which was to compel the claimant to respond to interrogatories 9, 10, and 17 (see, Schobel v Godwin, 264 AD2d 832; Sumitomo Bank v…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Zappavigna v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Schobel v. GodwinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Sumitomo Bank of New York Trust Co. v. Town of North HempsteadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997