Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hsbc Bank Nevada, N.A v. David Jaroslawicz

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT


April 21, 2011

HSBC BANK NEVADA, N.A., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID JAROSLAWICZ, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Per curiam.

HSBC Bank Nev., N.A. v Jaroslawicz

Decided on April 21, 2011

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., Schoenfeld, Torres, JJ

HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David Jaroslawicz, Defendant-Respondent.

APRIL 21, 2011

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT March 2011 Term

Hunter, Jr., J.P., Schoenfeld, Torres, JJ.

No. 570274/10

NY County Clerk's

Calendar No. 11-077

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Peter J. Moulton, J.), dated November 12, 2009, which conditionally granted defendant's motion to strike the complaint for noncompliance with certain disclosure obligations.

Per Curiam.

Order (Peter J. Moulton, J.), dated November 12, 2009, affirmed, with $10 costs. In the absence of a showing that the discovery requests were overbroad or unduly burdensome, plaintiff failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating that defendant's discovery demands were improper (see Sage Realty Corp. v Proskauer Rose, 251 AD2d 35, 40 [1998]; Roman Catholic Church of Good Shepherd v Tempco Sys., 202 AD2d 257, 258 [1994]). Nor was it shown that the documents sought were privileged (see Anonymous v High School for Envtl. Studies, 32 AD3d 353, 359 [2006]; Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v American Home Assur. Co., 23 AD3d 190, 190-191 [2005]).

We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining claims and find them to be without merit. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Decision Date: April 21, 2011

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Peter J. Moulton, J.), dated November 12, 2009, which conditionally granted defendant's motion to strike the complaint for noncompliance with certain disclosure obligations.

Order (Peter J. Moulton, J.), dated November 12, 2009, affirmed, with $10 costs.

In the absence of a showing that the discovery requests were overbroad or unduly burdensome, plaintiff failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating that defendant's discovery demands were improper (see Sage Realty Corp. v Proskauer Rose, 251 AD2d 35, 40 [1998]; Roman Catholic Church of Good Shepherd v Tempco Sys., 202 AD2d 257, 258 [1994]). Nor was it shown that the documents sought were privileged (see Anonymous v High School for Envtl. Studies, 32 AD3d 353, 359 [2006]; Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v American Home Assur. Co., 23 AD3d 190, 190-191 [2005]).

We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Decision Date: April 21, 2011

20110421

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.