Goldfine v Sichenzia
2004 NYSlipOp 09258
December 13, 2004
Appellate Division, Second Department
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.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.