From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pezhman v. Department of Educ

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 14, 2010
79 A.D.3d 543 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 3902N.

December 14, 2010.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered August 23, 2010, which denied plaintiffs motion to strike defendants' answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Anna Pezhman, appellant pro se.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Julie Steiner of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.


Plaintiff failed to carry her burden of clearly demonstrating that defendants' failure to comply with disclosure obligations was willful, contumacious or in bad faith ( compare Palmenta v Columbia Univ., 266 AD2d 90, 91, with Rodriguez v United Bronx Parents, Inc., 70 AD3d 492). Plaintiff also failed to file the affirmation of good faith required by 22 NYCRR 202.7 ( see 148 Magnolia, LLC v Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 62 AD3d 486).


Summaries of

Pezhman v. Department of Educ

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 14, 2010
79 A.D.3d 543 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Pezhman v. Department of Educ

Case Details

Full title:ANNA PEZHMAN, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW…

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

Date published: Dec 14, 2010

Citations

79 A.D.3d 543 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 9192
911 N.Y.S.2d 906

Citing Cases

DC Media Capital, LLC v. Sivan

As the court said at that time, although the parties are free to attempt to come to an agreement among…

Ventura v. Ozone Park Holding Corp.

Accordingly, there was no basis to stay its motion. The court providently exercised its discretion in…