From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kingsgate Associates v. Advest, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 4, 1994
208 A.D.2d 356 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

October 4, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).


In this consolidated action for damages arising out of the alleged improper liquidation of a securities account, it was not an abuse of discretion to grant the protective orders (CPLR 3103 [a]; Stambovsky v. Reiner, 145 A.D.2d 309, 310). The discovery notices were served after the court-ordered discovery cutoff date had passed (see, Silber v. Silber, 111 A.D.2d 889), and plaintiffs failed to offer any reasonable explanation for a seven-year delay in seeking disclosure (see, National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Glass Check Cashing Corp., 177 A.D.2d 419). Finally, the massive disclosure request lacked the "'requisite specificity'" for production (Mendelowitz v. Xerox Corp., 169 A.D.2d 300, 304), and the court properly limited plaintiffs' discovery to those items previously specified to the court as necessary (see, Silber v Silber, supra, at 889-890).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Kingsgate Associates v. Advest, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 4, 1994
208 A.D.2d 356 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Kingsgate Associates v. Advest, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:KINGSGATE ASSOCIATES et al., Appellants, v. ADVEST, INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 4, 1994

Citations

208 A.D.2d 356 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
616 N.Y.S.2d 743

Citing Cases

Flatiron-Williamsburg Prop. Grp. II LLC v. Arpad Baksa Architect, P.C.

If defendants choose to waste their opportunities to depose plaintiffs' witnesses on pointless inquiries not…

Nathel v. Nathel

Before: Lippman, P.J., Saxe, Friedman, Sweeny and Acosta, JJ. In light of plaintiff's two-year delay in…