Gordon v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gordon v. City of New York

245 A.D.2d 184, 666 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13130

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 184 (Gordon v. City of New York) 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

Gordon v. City of New York, 245 A.D.2d 184, 666 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Ryp, J.), entered March 14, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for disclosure sanctions against defendant-respondent for its failure to produce two written post-accident repair estimates for the sidewalk where plaintiff fell, unanimously modified, on the facts, to direct production of such estimates, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The requested repair estimates, even if ultimately held inadmissible at trial because made after the accident, are discoverable since they may shed light on the issue of who controlled or maintained the area of the sidewalk where the accident occurred (see, Olivia v Gouze, 285 App Div 762, 765, affd 1 NY2d 811; cf., Cleland v 60-02 Woodside Corp., 221 AD2d 307). We have considered plaintiff’s argument that defendant’s failure to produce the repair estimates was willful and contumacious, and find that defendant’s conduct does not warrant sanctions at this time. Plaintiff’s argument concerning the sufficiency of defendant’s affidavit attesting to the nonexistence of certain documents that were directed to be produced in the order on appeal should be addressed in the first instance to the motion court. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Ryp, J.), entered March 14, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for disclosure sanctions against defendant-respondent for its failure to produce two written post-accident repair estimates for the sidewalk where plaintiff fell, unanimously modified, on the facts, to direct production of such estimates, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The requested repair estimates, even if ultimately held inadmissible at trial because made after the accident, are discoverable since they may shed light on the issue of who controlled or maintained the area of the sidewalk where the accident occurred (see, Olivia v Gouze, 285 App Div 762, 765, affd 1 NY2d 811; cf., Cleland v 60-02 Woodside Corp., 221 AD2d 307). We have considered plaintiff’s argument that defendant’s failure to produce the repair estimates was willful and contumacious, and find that defendant’s conduct does not warrant sanctions at this time. Plaintiff’s argument concerning the sufficiency of defendant’s affidavit attesting to the nonexistence of certain documents that were directed to be produced in the order on appeal should be addressed in the first instance to the motion court. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 184, 666 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack