[*1]
| 295 Cent. Park W., Inc. v Brecker |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 51918(U) [29 Misc 3d 132(A)] |
| Decided on November 10, 2010 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be
published in the printed Official Reports. |
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST
DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570352/10.
295 Central Park West, Inc.,
Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,
against
Mark Lewis Brecker, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.
Tenant, as limited by his briefs, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of
the City of New York, New York County (David J. Kaplan, J.), entered June 4, 2009, which
denied his motion to dismiss the holdover petition.
Per Curiam.
Order (David J. Kaplan, J.), entered June 4, 2009, insofar as appealed from, affirmed,
without costs.
Civil Court providently exercised its discretion in denying tenant's motion for disclosure
sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126, since, as the court correctly determined, landlord's responses
to tenant's interrogatories were sufficient (see generally Gillen v Utica First Ins. Co., 41
AD3d 647 [2007]).
We have considered and rejected tenant's remaining contentions.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur
| NOVEMBER 10, 2010 |
| SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT |
| | | | | | | |
September 2010 Term |
| Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ. |
295 Central Park West, Inc., NY County Clerk's No.
Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent,570352/10
-
against-
Mark Lewis Brecker,Calendar No. 10-275
Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.
Tenant, as limited by his briefs, appeals from that portion of an order of the Civil Court of
the City of New York, New York County (David J. Kaplan, J.), entered June 4, 2009, which
denied his motion to dismiss the holdover petition.
Per Curiam.
Order (David J. Kaplan, J.), entered June 4, 2009, insofar as appealed from, affirmed,
without costs.
Civil Court providently exercised its discretion in denying tenant's motion for disclosure
sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126, since, as the court correctly determined, landlord's responses
to tenant's interrogatories were sufficient (see generally Gillen v Utica First Ins. Co., 41
AD3d 647 [2007]).
We have considered and rejected tenant's remaining contentions.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: November 10, 2010
Decision Date: November 10, 2010