Legal Opinion
Caval v. City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 15, 2011PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff failed to show that the defendants violated a conditional order of preclusion, that they otherwise failed to comply with the plaintiffs discovery demands, or that, if they did fail to so comply, such failure was willful or contumacious. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer (see Morano v Westchester Paving & Sealing Corp., 7 AD3d 495, 496 [2004]; see also Mazza v Seneca, 72 AD3d 754 [2010]; Steven L. Levitt & Assoc., P.C. v Balkin, 54 AD3d 403, 406…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Vyas v. CampbellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Foster v. Herbert Slepoy Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Kuzmin v. Visiting Nurse ServiceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Morano v. Westchester Paving & Sealing Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Mazza v. SenecaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Pierre v. 100 Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Pierre v. 100 Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Then v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Then v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012