From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Albinder v. Crescent Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 16, 1997
245 A.D.2d 145 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

December 16, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.).


The conditional preclusion order directing defendants to produce various documents was properly enforced in view of defendants' repeated failure to comply first with plaintiff's requests, and then with the court's orders, to produce such documents. Defendants' excuse, that their principal with control over the documents was out of town, is inadequate, given the time defendants had to comply, the absence of evidence of any attempts to locate this principal, and the prejudice any further delay would cause plaintiff ( see, Stepney v. New York City Hous. Auth., 161 A.D.2d 525).

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Colabella, JJ.


Summaries of

Albinder v. Crescent Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 16, 1997
245 A.D.2d 145 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Albinder v. Crescent Properties, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MAX ALBINDER, Respondent, v. CRESCENT PROPERTIES, INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Dec 16, 1997

Citations

245 A.D.2d 145 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
665 N.Y.S.2d 879

Citing Cases

Goldsmith v. Baron Capital, Inc.

In view of plaintiffs' demonstrated efforts to schedule their depositions so as to accommodate their dual…