Lesser v. Lacher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lesser v. Lacher

203 A.D.2d 181, 612 N.Y.S.2d 851

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

DecidedApril 26, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 181 (Lesser v. Lacher) 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

Lesser v. Lacher, 203 A.D.2d 181, 612 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Evans, J.), entered June 16, 1993, which granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm a Referee’s report, denied defendants’ cross motion to set aside the report, and awarded plaintiff a total amount of $100,704.84, with related relief, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Whether to preclude expert testimony as a sanction for a failure to identify a prospective expert witness or provide the substance of his or her testimony pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) is a matter best left to the trial court’s discretion (see, Vigilant Ins. Co. v Barnes, 199 AD2d 257), and, under the circumstances of this case, the determination not to preclude was proper (see, Simpson v Bellew, 161 AD2d 693, 698, lv denied 77 NY2d 808). The record provides no compelling reason not to defer to the Referee as arbiter of fact and credibility (see, Zuckerman v Altman, 200 AD2d 520).

We have considered the defendants’ remaining arguments, [182]*182and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Evans, J.), entered June 16, 1993, which granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm a Referee’s report, denied defendants’ cross motion to set aside the report, and awarded plaintiff a total amount of $100,704.84, with related relief, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Whether to preclude expert testimony as a sanction for a failure to identify a prospective expert witness or provide the substance of his or her testimony pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) is a matter best left to the trial court’s discretion (see, Vigilant Ins. Co. v Barnes, 199 AD2d 257), and, under the circumstances of this case, the determination not to preclude was proper (see, Simpson v Bellew, 161 AD2d 693, 698, lv denied 77 NY2d 808). The record provides no compelling reason not to defer to the Referee as arbiter of fact and credibility (see, Zuckerman v Altman, 200 AD2d 520).

We have considered the defendants’ remaining arguments, [182]*182and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 181, 612 N.Y.S.2d 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lesser-v-lacher-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack