From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Olshansky v. Ravera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 1985
107 A.D.2d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

January 22, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Adler, J.).


Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, with costs, and motion granted to the extent of precluding defendants from offering any proof as to the items as to which disclosure was sought, unless plaintiff's demand for disclosure is complied with by defendants. Defendants' time to so comply is extended until 10 days after service upon defendants of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry.

Defendants have failed to offer any satisfactory excuse for ignoring plaintiff's demand for disclosure. By ignoring that demand and failing to properly respond to the instant application, defendants have engaged in dilatory tactics resulting in inordinate delay. Such conduct is inexcusable and warrants the relief granted herein (see Donner v. 50 Tom Corp., 99 A.D.2d 504; see, also, Kramme v. Town of Hempstead, 100 A.D.2d 447, 451; Baumann v. Dee, 100 A.D.2d 504; Ferraro v. Koncal Assoc., 97 A.D.2d 429). Titone, J.P., Gibbons, Bracken and Weinstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Olshansky v. Ravera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 1985
107 A.D.2d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Olshansky v. Ravera

Case Details

Full title:FRANK OLSHANSKY, Appellant, v. BERNARD RAVERA et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jan 22, 1985

Citations

107 A.D.2d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Tomasino v. the American Tobacco Co.

The merits of the proposed amended pleading will not be reviewed " . . . unless the insufficiency or lack of…

Sawh v. Bridges

ch incorrectly represented that disclosure had been completed, made the previously possible disclosure of the…