Koziarz v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Koziarz v. New York City Transit Authority

40 A.D.3d 412, 836 N.Y.S.2d 127

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

DecidedMay 17, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 412 (Koziarz v. New York City Transit 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

Koziarz v. New York City Transit Authority, 40 A.D.3d 412, 836 N.Y.S.2d 127 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered June 19, 2006, which denied defendant’s motion to supplement its response to plaintiffs discovery demand by turning over a “trip sheet” containing the names of two witnesses, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion granted.

[413]*413The court exercised its discretion improvidently in denying defendant’s motion. There is no evidence that defendant’s failure to turn over the trip sheet was willful or in bad faith, or that plaintiff will be prejudiced by the late disclosure, and denying defendant permission to supplement its discovery response by turning over the trip sheet effectively precluded evidence from the only independent eyewitnesses to the accident (see Scherrer v Time Equities, Inc., 27 AD3d 208 [2006]; Schiavone v Brinewood Rod & Gun Club, 283 AD2d 234, 237 [2001]; Anagnostaros v 81st St. Residence Corp., 269 AD2d 150 [2000]). Concur—Marlow, J.P., Nardelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered June 19, 2006, which denied defendant’s motion to supplement its response to plaintiffs discovery demand by turning over a “trip sheet” containing the names of two witnesses, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion granted.

[413]*413The court exercised its discretion improvidently in denying defendant’s motion. There is no evidence that defendant’s failure to turn over the trip sheet was willful or in bad faith, or that plaintiff will be prejudiced by the late disclosure, and denying defendant permission to supplement its discovery response by turning over the trip sheet effectively precluded evidence from the only independent eyewitnesses to the accident (see Scherrer v Time Equities, Inc., 27 AD3d 208 [2006]; Schiavone v Brinewood Rod & Gun Club, 283 AD2d 234, 237 [2001]; Anagnostaros v 81st St. Residence Corp., 269 AD2d 150 [2000]). Concur—Marlow, J.P., Nardelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 412, 836 N.Y.S.2d 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koziarz-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack