Kauffman v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kauffman v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority

295 A.D.2d 171, 743 N.Y.S.2d 109, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6157

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

DecidedJune 13, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 171 (Kauffman v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority) 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

Kauffman v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority, 295 A.D.2d 171, 743 N.Y.S.2d 109, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6157 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered May 21, 2001, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant’s answer only to the extent of extending plaintiffs’ time to file a note of issue and granted defendant’s cross motion for a protective order to the extent of precluding plaintiffs from demanding further discovery, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to grant plaintiffs’ motion to the further extent of precluding defendant from offering testimony by any witness not already identified, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover damages allegedly resulting from [172]*172injuries sustained by plaintiff John Kauffman when ice fell from the Throgs Neck Bridge onto his vehicle, the relief sought by plaintiffs for defendant’s less-than-full compliance with plaintiffs’ numerous discovery demands was plainly inappropriate since defendant’s failure to fully comply was not willful, contumacious, or attributable to bad faith (see, Rosario v New York City Hous. Auth., 272 AD2d 105). Indeed, given the 12 depositions of defendant’s employees, defendant’s production of nearly 150 pages of reports documenting incidents involving falling ice at every one of its facilities in the year preceding plaintiff’s accident, as well as its production of extensive records regarding its rules, procedures and the regulations governing its bridges, blueprints of the subject bridge, time cards for all of its employees on duty at or around the time of the alleged accident, a facility phone log covering the day of the accident, and defendant’s acquiescence in a nearly seven-hour-long search by plaintiffs for missing documents at defendant’s storage facilities, the motion court’s refusal to strike defendant’s answer pursuant to CPLR 3126 was entirely proper.

However, in light of the repeated failure of defendant to provide the names of persons employed by it at the time of the subject incident, we find that defendant should be precluded from offering testimony of any such witness who has not been identified (see, New v Scores Entertainment, 255 AD2d 108).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Williams, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered May 21, 2001, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant’s answer only to the extent of extending plaintiffs’ time to file a note of issue and granted defendant’s cross motion for a protective order to the extent of precluding plaintiffs from demanding further discovery, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to grant plaintiffs’ motion to the further extent of precluding defendant from offering testimony by any witness not already identified, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In this action to recover damages allegedly resulting from [172]*172injuries sustained by plaintiff John Kauffman when ice fell from the Throgs Neck Bridge onto his vehicle, the relief sought by plaintiffs for defendant’s less-than-full compliance with plaintiffs’ numerous discovery demands was plainly inappropriate since defendant’s failure to fully comply was not willful, contumacious, or attributable to bad faith (see, Rosario v New York City Hous. Auth., 272 AD2d 105). Indeed, given the 12 depositions of defendant’s employees, defendant’s production of nearly 150 pages of reports documenting incidents involving falling ice at every one of its facilities in the year preceding plaintiff’s accident, as well as its production of extensive records regarding its rules, procedures and the regulations governing its bridges, blueprints of the subject bridge, time cards for all of its employees on duty at or around the time of the alleged accident, a facility phone log covering the day of the accident, and defendant’s acquiescence in a nearly seven-hour-long search by plaintiffs for missing documents at defendant’s storage facilities, the motion court’s refusal to strike defendant’s answer pursuant to CPLR 3126 was entirely proper.

However, in light of the repeated failure of defendant to provide the names of persons employed by it at the time of the subject incident, we find that defendant should be precluded from offering testimony of any such witness who has not been identified (see, New v Scores Entertainment, 255 AD2d 108).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Williams, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 171, 743 N.Y.S.2d 109, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kauffman-v-triborough-bridge-tunnel-authority-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack