Case Name: Michael Lubell, Respondent, v. Work Wear Corporation, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1976-01-16
Citations: 86 Misc. 1001
Docket Number: 
Parties: Michael Lubell, Respondent, v Work Wear Corporation, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 86
Pages: 1001–1001

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.