Frenk v. Frederick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frenk v. Frederick

38 A.D.3d 593, 830 N.Y.S.2d 672

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 593 (Frenk v. Frederick) 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

Frenk v. Frederick, 38 A.D.3d 593, 830 N.Y.S.2d 672 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated September 26, 2005, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Parties have a continuing obligation to provide information as it becomes available to them (see CPLR 3101 [h]), and where the defendants attempt to introduce at trial the testimony of witnesses whose addresses were not disclosed to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs may seek preclusion of that evidence at that time (see Brown v United Christian Evangelistic Assn., 270 AD2d 378, 379 [2000]). Under the particular facts of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting preclusion.

The defendants’ remaining contention is without merit. Crane, J.P, Krausman, Fisher and Dickerson, 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 personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated September 26, 2005, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Parties have a continuing obligation to provide information as it becomes available to them (see CPLR 3101 [h]), and where the defendants attempt to introduce at trial the testimony of witnesses whose addresses were not disclosed to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs may seek preclusion of that evidence at that time (see Brown v United Christian Evangelistic Assn., 270 AD2d 378, 379 [2000]). Under the particular facts of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting preclusion.

The defendants’ remaining contention is without merit. Crane, J.P, Krausman, Fisher and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 593, 830 N.Y.S.2d 672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frenk-v-frederick-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack