Alston v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alston v. New York City Transit Authority

23 A.D.3d 239, 803 N.Y.S.2d 427

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 15, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.3d 239 (Alston v. New York City Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alston v. New York City Transit Authority, 23 A.D.3d 239, 803 N.Y.S.2d 427 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered July 12, 2004, upon a jury verdict, in favor of defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs seek reversal on the ground that the trial court received the defense expert’s testimony despite late notice to plaintiffs’ counsel pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d). However, the trial court had discretion under CPLR 3101 (d) to fashion a remedy consistent with justice, and, under the present circumstances, such discretion was not improvidently exercised (see Jefferson v Temco Servs. Indus., 272 AD2d 196 [2000]; Busse v Clark Equip. Co., 182 AD2d 525, 526 [1992]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered July 12, 2004, upon a jury verdict, in favor of defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs seek reversal on the ground that the trial court received the defense expert’s testimony despite late notice to plaintiffs’ counsel pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d). However, the trial court had discretion under CPLR 3101 (d) to fashion a remedy consistent with justice, and, under the present circumstances, such discretion was not improvidently exercised (see Jefferson v Temco Servs. Indus., 272 AD2d 196 [2000]; Busse v Clark Equip. Co., 182 AD2d 525, 526 [1992]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 239, 803 N.Y.S.2d 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alston-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack