You are here: / / DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS RELATING TO DISCLOSURE WAS...
,

DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS RELATING TO DISCLOSURE WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL’S AFFIRMATION DEMONSTRATING A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE MOTION, THE CROSS-MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined defendants’ cross-motion for sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126 relating to disclosure should not have been granted. The cross-motion was not accompanied by defense counsel’s affirmation demonstrating a good faith effort to resolve the issues addressed by the motion:

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.7(a) and (c), a motion relating to disclosure must be accompanied by an affirmation from moving counsel attesting to a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion, including the time, place and nature of the consultation as well as the issues discussed. Here, the affirmation of good faith submitted by the defendants’ counsel in support of the cross motion for sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126 failed to provide any detail of the claimed efforts to resolve the issues. While the defendants’ counsel asserted that he had conversations with the plaintiff’s counsel, he did not identify the dates of such conversations or the name of the attorney with whom he conversed. Therefore, the cross motion should have been denied … . Bronstein v Charm City Hous., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06058, Second Dept 8-7-19

 

You might also like
BECAUSE THE ZONING BOARD DID NOT ADDRESS THE MERITS OF AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE, SUPREME COURT COULD NOT ADDRESS THE MERITS.
Dismissal of Complaint Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Appropriate Where Documentary Evidence Flatly Contradicts Allegations in the Complaint
Mother’s Request to Relocate Properly Granted
Portable Breath Test Device (PBT) Results Should Not Have Been Admitted, Driving While Intoxicated Conviction Reversed
Glass Plate in Wall Under Demolition Was Not a “Falling Object” within the Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)
PROOF OF MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE TO THE CORRECT ADDRESS WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INITIAL MOTION PAPERS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT PART OF PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; IN ADDTIION, THE PROOF OF MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS DEFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS TAKEN TO THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S EMERGENCY ROOM AND WAS OPERATED ON BY AN INDEPENDENT SURGEON; PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THE EMERGENCY ROOM EXCEPTION APPLIED AND THE HOSPITAL WAS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE SURGEON’S ALLEGED MALPRACTICE (SECOND DEPT).
Parolees May Move for Resentencing Under the Drug Law Reform Act

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION BROUGHT BY A FIREFIGHTER... ALTHOUGH THE BETTER PRACTICE IS TO SUBMIT A SEPARATE AFFIRMATION, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S...