Martinez v. New York City Transit Authority

218 A.D.2d 643, 630 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8305
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 7, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 218 A.D.2d 643 (Martinez 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
Martinez v. New York City Transit Authority, 218 A.D.2d 643, 630 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8305 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated August 26, 1993, which directed it to pay the sum of $10,000 to the plaintiff as a sanction.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof directing the payment of $10,000 to the plaintiff and substituting therefor a provision directing that the $10,000 be deposited with the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, for transmittal to the State Commissioner of Taxation and Finance; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The record amply supports the Supreme Court’s finding that the defendant’s conduct was frivolous. For the first time, in the middle of trial, the defendant produced a critical witness, the allegedly negligent party, although this witness, who was its own employee, had been readily identifiable and available for more than two years. Under the circumstances, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding the witness’s testimony unless payment of the maximum monetary sanction was made.

However, the court erred in directing that payment be made directly to the plaintiff. Sanctions imposed against a party must be deposited with the Clerk of the Court for transmittal to the State Commissioner of Taxation and Finance (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.3; Nowak v Walden, 187 AD2d 418).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. Fiorilla
2019 NY Slip Op 9107 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Palisades Collection, LLC v. Sadowski
25 Misc. 3d 816 (New York District Court, 2009)
Holloway v. Holloway
260 A.D.2d 898 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Weisshaus v. Gandl
238 A.D.2d 515 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Gossett v. Firestar Affiliates, Inc.
224 A.D.2d 487 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
218 A.D.2d 643, 630 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1995.