Henderson v. Shadmi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Henderson v. Shadmi

50 A.D.3d 341, 854 N.Y.S.2d 306

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

DecidedApril 8, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.3d 341 (Henderson v. Shadmi) 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

Henderson v. Shadmi, 50 A.D.3d 341, 854 N.Y.S.2d 306 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered December 28, 2006, which granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer to the extent of striking the answer unless defendant [342]*342appeared for a deposition within 90 days from the date of the order, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, to grant the motion to the extent of precluding defendant from offering evidence at trial on the issue of liability.

There was an insufficient showing of a good faith effort to locate defendant after the court orders requiring that he be produced for a deposition were issued. In these circumstances, we find the more appropriate sanction to be unconditional preclusion. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Friedman, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered December 28, 2006, which granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer to the extent of striking the answer unless defendant [342]*342appeared for a deposition within 90 days from the date of the order, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, to grant the motion to the extent of precluding defendant from offering evidence at trial on the issue of liability.

There was an insufficient showing of a good faith effort to locate defendant after the court orders requiring that he be produced for a deposition were issued. In these circumstances, we find the more appropriate sanction to be unconditional preclusion. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Friedman, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 341, 854 N.Y.S.2d 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-shadmi-nyappdiv-2008.