Fama v. Marchetti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fama v. Marchetti

215 A.D.2d 721, 627 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5752

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 30, 1995·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered January 25, 1993, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $1,314,446.05.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The record does not indicate that the plaintiff’s failure to list the identities of a number of witnesses was willful or contumacious. Thus, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to preclude and/or strike the testimony of these witnesses (see, Guillen v New York City Tr. Auth., 192 AD2d 506; Burton v New York City Hous. Auth., 191 AD2d 669; DeJesus v Finnegan, 137 AD2d 649; Bermudez v Laminates Unlimited, 134 AD2d 314).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, O’Brien and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered January 25, 1993, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $1,314,446.05.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The record does not indicate that the plaintiff’s failure to list the identities of a number of witnesses was willful or contumacious. Thus, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to preclude and/or strike the testimony of these witnesses (see, Guillen v New York City Tr. Auth., 192 AD2d 506; Burton v New York City Hous. Auth., 191 AD2d 669; DeJesus v Finnegan, 137 AD2d 649; Bermudez v Laminates Unlimited, 134 AD2d 314).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, O’Brien and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Fama v. Marchetti, 215 A.D.2d 721, 627 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

215 A.D.2d 721 (Fama v. Marchetti) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related