Callaghan v. Curtis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Callaghan v. Curtis

82 A.D.3d 818, 918 N.Y.2d 379

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

DecidedMarch 8, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 818 (Callaghan v. Curtis) 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

Callaghan v. Curtis, 82 A.D.3d 818, 918 N.Y.2d 379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

“[A] trial court is given broad discretion to oversee the discovery process” (Castillo v Henry Schein, Inc., 259 AD2d 651, 652 [1999]). Here, the plaintiff clearly violated a prior order of the Supreme Court by failing to bring certain documents to her deposition. Her attorney also made extensive “speaking objections” during the deposition, and the plaintiff herself repeatedly refused to answer clear questions. We conclude that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, upon the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike her reply to their counterclaims, by, inter alia, precluding the plaintiff from offering any documents at trial (see e.g. O’Neill v Ho, 28 AD3d 626, 627 [2006]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

“[A] trial court is given broad discretion to oversee the discovery process” (Castillo v Henry Schein, Inc., 259 AD2d 651, 652 [1999]). Here, the plaintiff clearly violated a prior order of the Supreme Court by failing to bring certain documents to her deposition. Her attorney also made extensive “speaking objections” during the deposition, and the plaintiff herself repeatedly refused to answer clear questions. We conclude that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, upon the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike her reply to their counterclaims, by, inter alia, precluding the plaintiff from offering any documents at trial (see e.g. O’Neill v Ho, 28 AD3d 626, 627 [2006]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 818, 918 N.Y.2d 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/callaghan-v-curtis-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack