Jamaica Public Service Co. v. La Interamericana Compania De Seguros Generales S.A.

293 A.D.2d 336, 740 N.Y.S.2d 319, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3629

This text of 293 A.D.2d 336 (Jamaica Public Service Co. v. La Interamericana Compania De Seguros Generales S.A.) 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
Jamaica Public Service Co. v. La Interamericana Compania De Seguros Generales S.A., 293 A.D.2d 336, 740 N.Y.S.2d 319, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3629 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered October 29, 2001, which, in an action on a property insurance policy, inter alia, granted defendants’ motions to compel the deposition of one of plaintiffs expert witnesses, and for sanctions, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to plaintiffs challenge to the court’s order, orally rendered at a conference, directing depositions of experts, in view of the letter one of the defendants addressed to the court and circulated to all parties reiterating the court’s directives given at the conference, plaintiffs responsive letter expressly consenting to such letter, and plaintiffs participation in the depositions of experts. Unless public policy is affronted, not the case here, parties are afforded great latitude in charting their own procedural course (see, Town of Orangetown v Magee, 88 NY2d 41, 54; Katz v Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman, 277 AD2d 70, 73). Plaintiffs false original description of one of its paid expert witnesses as an independent fact witness who was not amenable to deposition in New York resulted in unnecessary travel expenses, an ineffective deposition, and motion practice to compel disclosure over plaintiffs unsupportable objection that this witness had been “fully deposed,” and justified an award of sanctions measured by defendants’ costs in preparing and attending the witness’s earlier and future depositions (cf., Placede v City of New York, 210 AD2d 18). Concur—Tom, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

Related

Town of Orangetown v. Magee
665 N.E.2d 1061 (New York Court of Appeals, 1996)
Placede v. City of New York
210 A.D.2d 18 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Katz v. Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman, L. L. P.
277 A.D.2d 70 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
293 A.D.2d 336, 740 N.Y.S.2d 319, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jamaica-public-service-co-v-la-interamericana-compania-de-seguros-nyappdiv-2002.