Case ID: misc2d_162/html/0502-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[619 NYS2d 487]
    9th Street Estates, Inc., Appellant, v Stefania Rohatycka, Also Known as Stefania Rohatynska et al., Respondents.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    August 18, 1994
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      James Briscoe West, New York City, for appellant. Benjamin R. Kaplan, New York City, for respondents.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Orders dated February 28, 1994, modified to the extent of granting landlord’s cross motion for preclusion pursuant to CPLR 3126 unless respondent appears at a rescheduled examination within 30 days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry; as modified, orders affirmed, without costs.

The lower court has carefully framed a solution to the parties’ difficulty in completing respondent’s deposition. There being neither clear error nor an abuse of discretion below, we can find no reason to depart from the long-standing policy of appellate courts against micromanaging disclosure. Respondent remains directed under the previous order of this court (9th St. Estates v Rohatynska, NYLJ, Nov. 18, 1993, at 30, col 1) to appear at a rescheduled examination or landlord’s motion to preclude shall be granted.

Parness, J. P., McCooe and Glen, JJ., concur.