LOPEZ v. HICKS, 178 A.D.3d 620 (2019)
Court: Supreme Court of New York
Number: innyco20191226225
Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 26, 2019
Summary: Plaintiff has not shown that the post-note of issue discovery directed by the Supreme Court caused him prejudice or was otherwise an improvident exercise of that court's broad discretion in supervising disclosure ( see 22 NYCRR 202.21[d]; Cuprill v Citywide Towing & Auto Repair Servs., 149 A.D.3d 442 , 443 [1st Dept 2017]; Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v Occidental Gems, Inc., 11 N.Y.3d 843 , 845 [2008]).
Plaintiff has not shown that the post-note of issue discovery directed by the Supreme Court caused him prejudice or was otherwise an improvident exercise of that court's broad discretion in supervising disclosure (see 22 NYCRR 202.21[d]; Cuprill v Citywide Towing & Auto Repair Servs., 149 A.D.3d 442, 443 [1st Dept 2017]; Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v Occidental Gems, Inc., 11 N.Y.3d 843, 845 [2008]).
Source: Leagle
