Hubbard v. Platzer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hubbard v. Platzer

260 A.D.2d 605, 688 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4280

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 26, 1999·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), entered March 3, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant and against her, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the plaintiff from producing expert medical testimony based on her failure to comply with CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) (see, Lyall v City of New York, 228 AD2d 566; Vigilant Ins. Co. v Barnes, 199 AD2d 257; Corning v Carlin, 178 AD2d 576). The plaintiff did not respond to disclosure demands until after the trial began, and failed to include the substance of the expert testimony sought to be precluded by the defendant (see, Rassaei v Kessler, 252 AD2d 577). Additionally, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for her noncompliance with CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) (see, Kaprelian v Kaprelian, 236 AD2d 369). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Luciano, 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, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), entered March 3, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant and against her, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the plaintiff from producing expert medical testimony based on her failure to comply with CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) (see, Lyall v City of New York, 228 AD2d 566; Vigilant Ins. Co. v Barnes, 199 AD2d 257; Corning v Carlin, 178 AD2d 576). The plaintiff did not respond to disclosure demands until after the trial began, and failed to include the substance of the expert testimony sought to be precluded by the defendant (see, Rassaei v Kessler, 252 AD2d 577). Additionally, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for her noncompliance with CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) (see, Kaprelian v Kaprelian, 236 AD2d 369). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Hubbard v. Platzer, 260 A.D.2d 605, 688 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

260 A.D.2d 605 (Hubbard v. Platzer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related