From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schwartz v. Kim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 19, 1981
79 A.D.2d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Opinion

January 19, 1981


In an action, inter alia, for an accounting, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated February 13, 1979, which denied a motion to strike defendant's affirmative defenses or, in the alternative, to preclude defendant from introducing evidence with respect to the second affirmative defense. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Valid defenses to a claim that a defendant has breached the restrictive covenant of a contract exist where (1) the contract provides that upon its termination neither party has any rights against the other or (2) the contract had been terminated as a result of plaintiff's bad faith (see Gelder Med. Group v. Webber, 41 N.Y.2d 680). Concerning plaintiff's contention that defendant be precluded from asserting the latter defense due to his refusal to provide certain information at pretrial discovery, the record reflects only that in arguing the motion to preclude the defense, defense counsel agreed to supply the requested names. If in fact counsel reneged on the agreement or plaintiff has concluded that further information is required, the proper procedure would be to renew its motion before the trial court. Mollen, P.J., Hopkins, Mangano and Cohalan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Schwartz v. Kim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 19, 1981
79 A.D.2d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
Case details for

Schwartz v. Kim

Case Details

Full title:A. DAVID SCHWARTZ, P.C., Appellant, v. JAE CHAN KIM, Respondent

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

Date published: Jan 19, 1981

Citations

79 A.D.2d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Citing Cases

Davis v. Center

In any event, Supreme Court is in the best position to assess what is material and necessary during…