Baez v. Arrow Linen Supply Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baez v. Arrow Linen Supply Co.

10 A.D.3d 408, 781 N.Y.S.2d 143, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10326

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

DecidedAugust 16, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.3d 408 (Baez v. Arrow Linen Supply Co.) 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

Baez v. Arrow Linen Supply Co., 10 A.D.3d 408, 781 N.Y.S.2d 143, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Arrow Linen Supply Company, Inc., and Kerwin D. Seepersad appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D. Schmidt, J.), dated August 21, 2003, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was to preclude the defendant Kerwin D. Seepersad from testifying at trial.

Ordered that the order is modified by adding to the end of the second decretal paragraph the words “unless he appears for a deposition at a time and place mutually agreeable to the parties, but in no event later that 30 days before the trial”; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the cross motion which was to preclude the defendant Kerwin D. Seepersad from testifying at trial, without providing him another opportunity to be deposed before the trial (see Ciánciolo v Trism Spedalized Carriers, 274 AD2d 369 [2000]). Santucci, J.P., H. Miller, Luciano, Crane and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Arrow Linen Supply Company, Inc., and Kerwin D. Seepersad appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D. Schmidt, J.), dated August 21, 2003, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was to preclude the defendant Kerwin D. Seepersad from testifying at trial.

Ordered that the order is modified by adding to the end of the second decretal paragraph the words “unless he appears for a deposition at a time and place mutually agreeable to the parties, but in no event later that 30 days before the trial”; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the cross motion which was to preclude the defendant Kerwin D. Seepersad from testifying at trial, without providing him another opportunity to be deposed before the trial (see Ciánciolo v Trism Spedalized Carriers, 274 AD2d 369 [2000]). Santucci, J.P., H. Miller, Luciano, Crane and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 408, 781 N.Y.S.2d 143, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baez-v-arrow-linen-supply-co-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack