Case ID: misc2d_86/html/1001-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael Lubell, Respondent, v Work Wear Corporation, Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
    January 16, 1976
    
      Monasch Chazen & Stream (Arnold C Stream and Robert G. Smith of counsel), for appellant. Ronald Forster and Martin R. Nat for respondent.
   Memorandum. Order affirmed, with $10 costs.

Defendant’s attorney did not demonstrate that he was a person with sufficient knowledge of the facts to respond to the interrogatories (CPLR 3134, subd [a]).

Furthermore, the court’s imposition of costs did not constitute an abuse of discretion (CPLR 8106).

Concur: Groat, P. J., Schwartzwald and O’Connor, JJ.