Although defendant's deposition was delayed, the delay was relatively brief and was not shown to have been prejudicial or to have been attributable to willful or contumacious flouting of the court's discovery directives. Under the circumstances, the court's denial of the extreme sanction sought by plaintiffs, some three months subsequent to the completion of defendant's deposition, constituted a proper exercise of discretion (cf. Williamson v City of New York,
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.
NUSSBAUM v. D'AMICO
29 A.D.3d 449 (2006)
814 N.Y.S.2d 523
JAY NUSSBAUM et al., Appellants, v. JOSEPH D'AMICO, Respondent.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
May 23, 2006.
May 23, 2006.
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.
