295 Cent. Park W., Inc. v Brecker

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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 10, 2010
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