![]() 211 at 3.) Plaintiffs did not respond by the deadline. 210, 211.) The court set a deadline of June 16, 2020, for plaintiffs to respond to defendants' discovery demands. 208, 209.)ĭefendants interposed a second motion to compel the court granted the motion in April 2020. 207.) Although the court initially denied the motion, the court later granted defendants' motion to reargue. 204, 206.) In December 2019, defendants moved to compel plaintiffs to respond to the discovery demands. In September 2019, defendants served plaintiffs with a set of interrogatories and a notice for discovery and inspection of documents. 8 and denies the other branches of defendants' motion. The court denies defendants' motion to compel production with respect to request no. The court orders an evidentiary hearing on the branch of defendants' motion seeking to compel plaintiffs to produce documents in response to defendants' requests for production, except as to request no. The court grants the branch of defendants' motion seeking to compel plaintiffs to respond to defendants' interrogatories. Defendants move to strike plaintiffs' complaint under CPLR 3126, to preclude plaintiffs from introducing any evidence with respect to any defenses which relate to this motion at trial under CPLR 3126, and to compel plaintiffs to respond to defendants' discovery demands under CPLR 3124. This motion arises from the latest of several discovery disputes in this action. Defendants-3681 Broadway HDFC itself, its board, and its current board members-counterclaimed, alleging that plaintiffs had financially mismanaged the HDFC during their time on the board and had failed to turn over documents belonging to the HDFC when they left the board. In 2016, they brought this action for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract, alleging, among other things, that the current board was financially mismanaging 3681 Broadway HDFC. Plaintiffs are former board members of the 3681 Broadway Housing Development Fund Corporation (3681 Broadway HDFC or the HDFC) and current residents of 3681 Broadway in Manhattan. Thomas Fleishell & Associates, P.C., New York, NY (Michael Stevens of counsel) for all defendants except the City of New York. Karin Arrospide, Esq., White Plains, NY, for plaintiffs. The 3681 Broadway HDFC, MIRTHA HASBURN, ANTONIO HASBUN, CELINA ALMONTE, BEATRIZ SANTANA, CRISTIAN DELGADO, VALERIE MATOS, MICHELLE THEN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 3681 BROADWAY HDFC, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, JOHN DOE, and JANE DOE, Defendants. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.įranklin Lama, LIDIO ZAPATA, RAMONA BAUTISTA, JUAN TAVARES, ILUMINADA BLANCO, individually and derivatively as shareholders of the 3681 Broadway HDFC, Plaintiffs, ![]() Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |