Dinnocenzo v. Jordache Enterprises, Inc.
Opinion
The trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff’s motion to mark the case off the calendar (CPLR 3401) in consideration of plaintiff’s need to subpoena a witness, and of in limine exclusion of the testimony of plaintiff’s expert (cf., Scarburgh Co. v American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 65 AD2d 694; Keane v Ranbar Packing, 121 AD2d 601). Any prejudice caused defendants was remedied by the imposition of $2,500 in costs to be paid to each. The subsequent grant of a 30-day extension to pay these costs was proper given the overriding policy of allowing cases to be decided on their merits. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Kupferman, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
228 A.D.2d 306 (Dinnocenzo v. Jordache Enterprises, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.