From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grosso Moving Packing Co., Inc. v. Damens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 27, 1999
261 A.D.2d 339 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

May 27, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.).


The responses provided by plaintiffs to defendant's first and second set of interrogatories were adequate. Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the answers provided by plaintiffs were not responsive ( see, Comstock Co. v. City of New York, 80 A.D.2d 805). Defendant's failure to appear for court-ordered depositions constituted special circumstances permitting the court to reverse the statutory priority of depositions ( see, Bucci v. Lydon, 116 A.D.2d 520, 521). We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.

Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.


Summaries of

Grosso Moving Packing Co., Inc. v. Damens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 27, 1999
261 A.D.2d 339 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Grosso Moving Packing Co., Inc. v. Damens

Case Details

Full title:GROSSO MOVING PACKING CO., INC., et al., Respondents, et al., Plaintiff…

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

Date published: May 27, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 339 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
691 N.Y.S.2d 426

Citing Cases

Shenouda v. Cohen

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, his motion to reject the defendant's response to his interrogatories…

Serio v. Rhulen

ial circumstances, such as the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties ( see NOPA Realty…