Dailey v. Keith

New York Court of Appeals

Dailey v. Keith

806 N.E.2d 130, 1 N.Y.3d 586, 774 N.Y.S.2d 105, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 53

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 12, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 806 N.E.2d 130 (Dailey v. Keith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dailey v. Keith, 806 N.E.2d 130, 1 N.Y.3d 586, 774 N.Y.S.2d 105, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 53 (N.Y. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. In exercising their discretion, the courts below did not err as a matter of law in refusing to allow the introduction of defendant’s deposition testimony at trial as evidence-in-chief. By voluntarily leaving the state and refusing to return for trial, defendant procured her own absence and, therefore, failed to satisfy CPLR 3117 (a) (3) (ii) (see United Bank v Cambridge Sporting Goods Corp., 41 NY2d 254, 264-265 [1976]). Thus, the deposition testimony was not admissible as of right.

Defendants’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved or lacking in merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graefeo and Read concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), orders affirmed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. In exercising their discretion, the courts below did not err as a matter of law in refusing to allow the introduction of defendant’s deposition testimony at trial as evidence-in-chief. By voluntarily leaving the state and refusing to return for trial, defendant procured her own absence and, therefore, failed to satisfy CPLR 3117 (a) (3) (ii) (see United Bank v Cambridge Sporting Goods Corp., 41 NY2d 254, 264-265 [1976]). Thus, the deposition testimony was not admissible as of right.

Defendants’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved or lacking in merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graefeo and Read concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), orders affirmed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

806 N.E.2d 130, 1 N.Y.3d 586, 774 N.Y.S.2d 105, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dailey-v-keith-ny-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack