From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Tiwari

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 26, 1999
265 A.D.2d 247 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

October 26, 1999

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.).


Since there is no record support for defendants' claim that plaintiffs' discovery defaults were willful or contumacious, and since plaintiffs' compliance with discovery demands, albeit delayed, was substantial, the court appropriately exercised its discretion in affording plaintiffs a "second chance" (see, Hanson v. City of New York, 227 A.D.2d 217). The court also appropriately exercised its discretion in considering response papers where the delay in submission was minimal (see, Foitl v. G.A.F. Corp., 64 N.Y.2d 911).

ELLERIN, P.J., ROSENBERGER, WILLIAMS, WALLACH, ANDRIAS, JJ.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Tiwari

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 26, 1999
265 A.D.2d 247 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Tiwari

Case Details

Full title:Victor Rodriguez, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Gaitree Tiwari, et…

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

Date published: Oct 26, 1999

Citations

265 A.D.2d 247 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
697 N.Y.S.2d 24

Citing Cases

Young v. Daglian

DISCUSSION At the outset, the court, in the interests of justice, grants plaintiff's order to show cause and…

Rodriguez v. Goodman

A. Defendants' Delayed Response The Court has discretion to consider untimely opposition papers, particularly…