From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lacewell v. Turner Construction Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 25, 2000
271 A.D.2d 365 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

April 25, 2000.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about March 11, 1999, which denied plaintiff's motion to strike defendant-respondent's answer for failure to comply with a prior conditional order of dismissal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Diane Welch Bando, for plaintiff-appellant.

Kathleen Commander, for defendant-respondent.

ROSENBERGER, J.P., NARDELLI, TOM, WALLACH, SAXE, JJ.


The record is at best ambiguous as to whether defendant is not in compliance with the outstanding directive to produce "duplicate original microfilms" of its records, and certainly does not demonstrate the level of willfulness that would justify the extreme sanction of striking its answer. Close supervision of the production process, along the lines that the motion court is now engaged, is a more appropriate course.

Motion seeking to strike defendant Turner Construction's brief and cross-motion seeking to strike plaintiff's brief and for other related relief denied.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Lacewell v. Turner Construction Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 25, 2000
271 A.D.2d 365 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Lacewell v. Turner Construction Company

Case Details

Full title:LELA LACEWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY…

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

Date published: Apr 25, 2000

Citations

271 A.D.2d 365 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
714 N.Y.S.2d 662

Citing Cases

Hanspal v. JPMorgan Chase Bank

Eviction of a possessor is the intended objective of an eviction proceeding, not a collateral one. With…