From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldfine v. Sichenzia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 13, 2004
13 A.D.3d 411 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-06095.

December 13, 2004.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Catherine N. Coughlin, Terence M. Coughlin, and Artesian Abstract, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated June 3, 2003, which granted the plaintiffs' motion, in effect, to strike their answer to the extent of precluding them from contesting the plaintiffs' claims unless they produced certain documents within 20 days.

Before: Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Adams, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the appellants to produce certain documents within 20 days of the date of the order appealed from, or be precluded from contesting the plaintiffs' claims against them ( see CPLR 3126; Pashayan v. Corson, 306 AD2d 259; Kingsley v. Kantor, 265 AD2d 529).


Summaries of

Goldfine v. Sichenzia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 13, 2004
13 A.D.3d 411 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Goldfine v. Sichenzia

Case Details

Full title:ERIC GOLDFINE et al., Respondents, v. MICHAEL SICHENZIA et al.…

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

Date published: Dec 13, 2004

Citations

13 A.D.3d 411 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
785 N.Y.S.2d 704

Citing Cases

Eric v. Sichenzia

Accordingly, Coughlin was entitled to summary judgment dismissing those causes of action insofar as asserted…