Eric Goldfine v Michael Sichenzia

Goldfine v Sichenzia 2004 NY Slip Op 09258 [13 AD3d 411] December 13, 2004 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Eric Goldfine et al., Respondents,
v
Michael Sichenzia et al., Defendants, and Catherine N. Coughlin et al., Appellants.

—[*1]In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Catherine N. Coughlin, Terence M. Coughlin, and Artesian Abstract, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated June 3, 2003, which granted the plaintiffs' motion, in effect, to strike their answer to the extent of precluding them from contesting the plaintiffs' claims unless they produced certain documents within 20 days.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the appellants to produce certain documents within 20 days of the date of the order appealed from, or be precluded from contesting the plaintiffs' claims against them (see CPLR 3126; Pashayan v Corson, 306 AD2d 259 [2003]; Kingsley v Kantor, 265 AD2d 529 [1999]). Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Adams, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.