From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garfield v. Done Fashion, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 2, 1996
227 A.D.2d 128 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

May 2, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.).


The record demonstrates defendants' repeated failure to comply with court-ordered discovery coupled with inadequate excuse for such noncompliance ( see, Mills v. Ducille, 170 A.D.2d 657). We perceive no improvident exercise of discretion in the IAS Court's imposition of a monetary condition in its order of July 31, 1995.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Garfield v. Done Fashion, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 2, 1996
227 A.D.2d 128 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Garfield v. Done Fashion, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN GARFIELD et al., Respondents, v. DONE FASHION, INC., et al.…

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

Date published: May 2, 1996

Citations

227 A.D.2d 128 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
641 N.Y.S.2d 301

Citing Cases

Dehaney v. N.Y.C. Tr. Auth

Plaintiffs' request for attorneys fees is therefore granted. See Garfield v. Done Fashion, Inc., 227 A.D.2d…

Rudes v. Heller

otion effectively places the issue before this court, and the court finds that under the circumstances here…