From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Beliavskaia v. Perkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 16, 1996
227 A.D.2d 246 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

May 16, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.).


An affidavit showing unusual or unanticipated circumstances justifying a departure from the general rule foreclosing discovery after the filing of a note of issue ( 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]) was not required here since the relief sought was not in the nature of discovery ( cf., Hill v. Sheehan, 154 A.D.2d 912).

We have considered defendants' other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Beliavskaia v. Perkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 16, 1996
227 A.D.2d 246 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Beliavskaia v. Perkin

Case Details

Full title:TATIANA BELIAVSKAIA et al., Respondents, v. HYMAN PERKIN et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 16, 1996

Citations

227 A.D.2d 246 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
642 N.Y.S.2d 522

Citing Cases

Thomas v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc.

. (Goldblatt v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 223 A.D.2d 670, 637 N.Y.S.2d 188 [1996]; Beliavskaia v Perkin, 227…

Magee v. City of New York

However, in the exercise of discretion, we impose preclusion of defendant's testimony as a sanction more…