The motion to strike defendants' answer was properly granted in view of the individual defendant-appellant's pattern of willful avoidance and evasion of the court's disclosure orders, it being clear that she is in the control of the corporate defendant. Defendants' belated filing of a meritless motion for partial summary judgment did not immunize them from the motion for sanctions given their repeated and willful failure to disclose (Oberlander v Levi,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
LUBLINER v. HELMSLEY-SPEAR, INC.
234 A.D.2d 38 (1996)
650 N.Y.S.2d 208
William Lubliner, Respondent, v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. (Action No. 1.) William Lubliner, Respondent, v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., et al., Appellants. (Action No. 2.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
December 5, 1996
December 5, 1996
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
