From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shenouda v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 10, 2003
1 A.D.3d 428 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-07853

Submitted September 22, 2003.

November 10, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for breach of a retainer agreement, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ponterio, J.), dated July 26, 2002, which denied his motion to reject the defendant's answers to interrogatories.

Medhat Shenouda, Staten Island, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Albert J. Brackley, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, SONDRA MILLER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, his motion to reject the defendant's response to his interrogatories was properly denied. The defendant provided adequate answers to the interrogatories submitted to him, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that they were not responsive ( see CPLR 3133[b]; Grosso Moving Packing Co. Inc. v. Damens, 261 A.D.2d 339; Kelly v. Kelly, 139 Misc.2d 1079).

RITTER, J.P., FLORIO, S. MILLER and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Shenouda v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 10, 2003
1 A.D.3d 428 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Shenouda v. Cohen

Case Details

Full title:MEDHAT SHENOUDA, appellant, v. LEWIS COHEN, respondent

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

Date published: Nov 10, 2003

Citations

1 A.D.3d 428 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
766 N.Y.S.2d 884

Citing Cases

Garber v. Stevens

Here, the court has reviewed Plaintiffs' answers to each of the disputed interrogatories and, accordingly,…

Ranne v. Huff

However, we agree with defendant that the court erred in compelling defendant to respond or respond further…