Bennett v. Riverbay Corp.
This text of 40 A.D.3d 319 (Bennett v. Riverbay Corp.) 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.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about May 5, 2006, which denied plaintiffs motion for disclosure sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff represents that the parties’ depositions were scheduled for January 12, 2006, and argues that defendants’ willful failure to produce witnesses deprived him of his right to deposition priority. Defendants do not deny the scheduling of all depositions for January 12, represent that plaintiffs deposition did not conclude until 4:00 p.m., and argue that “[a]ccordingly, no defendant witnesses were produced on that day.” Absent a [320]*320showing of special circumstances substantiating plaintiffs claim of priority (see CPLR 3106 [a]; Bucci v Lydon, 116 AD2d 520, 521 [1986] [priority of deposition generally belongs to the defendant]), we cannot say that defendants’ failure to produce witnesses on January 12 is sanctionable (see Acevedo v Yuen-Fat Chan, 289 AD2d 10 [2001]). We have considered plaintiffs other claims of defendants’ noncompliance with disclosure obligations and find them without merit. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Buckley and McGuire, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
40 A.D.3d 319, 833 N.Y.S.2d 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-riverbay-corp-nyappdiv-2007.