Legal Opinion
Wolfson v. Calamel
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 22, 1990PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously modified as an exercise of discretion, and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The record does not establish that plaintiff’s failure to comply with defendant’s discovery demands or the trial court’s discovery order was *960willful or contumacious; therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint or preclude plaintiff from introducing any medical evidence (see, CPLR 3126; Donner v 50 Tom Corp., 99 AD2d 504; Wood v Ford Nursing Home Co., 79 AD2d 841;…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Gaylord Bros. v. RND Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Donner v. 50 Tom Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Crow-Crimmins-Wolff v. County of WestchesterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Siebert v. 60 Sutton Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Shamash v. Ohrbach's Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Pino v. HarnischfegerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Beauregard v. Millwood-BeauregardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Lidge v. Niagara Falls Memorial Medical CenterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005