O'Berry v. Gelco Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Berry v. Gelco Corp.

128 A.D.3d 597, 10 N.Y.S.3d 68

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

DecidedMay 26, 2015

Docket15224N 300936/12

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 597 (O'Berry v. Gelco Corp.) 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

O'Berry v. Gelco Corp., 128 A.D.3d 597, 10 N.Y.S.3d 68 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered October 22, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ motion to vacate the note of issue and compel certain discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The denial of defendants’ motion to compel the deposition testimony of defendant Abdou, thereby effectively precluding him from testifying at trial, was a provident exercise of the motion court’s discretion. Defendants failed to give a reasonable excuse for their disobedience of two compliance conference orders warning the parties that failure to comply would result in preclusion (see S.R. Garden City, LLC v Magnacare, LLC, 114 AD3d 925, 926 [2d Dept 2014]; see also Jones v Green, 34 AD3d 260, 261 [1st Dept 2006]).

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in declining to vacate the note of issue, even though discovery remained outstanding (see e.g. May v American Red Cross, 282 AD2d 285 [1st Dept 2001]).

Because the appellate record does not include a bill of particulars purportedly alleging neurological injuries, this Court cannot meaningfully review defendants’ contention that the motion court erred in refusing to compel plaintiff to submit to a neurological IME (see UBS Sec. LLC v Red Zone LLC, 77 AD3d 575, 579 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 706 [2011]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered October 22, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ motion to vacate the note of issue and compel certain discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The denial of defendants’ motion to compel the deposition testimony of defendant Abdou, thereby effectively precluding him from testifying at trial, was a provident exercise of the motion court’s discretion. Defendants failed to give a reasonable excuse for their disobedience of two compliance conference orders warning the parties that failure to comply would result in preclusion (see S.R. Garden City, LLC v Magnacare, LLC, 114 AD3d 925, 926 [2d Dept 2014]; see also Jones v Green, 34 AD3d 260, 261 [1st Dept 2006]).

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in declining to vacate the note of issue, even though discovery remained outstanding (see e.g. May v American Red Cross, 282 AD2d 285 [1st Dept 2001]).

Because the appellate record does not include a bill of particulars purportedly alleging neurological injuries, this Court cannot meaningfully review defendants’ contention that the motion court erred in refusing to compel plaintiff to submit to a neurological IME (see UBS Sec. LLC v Red Zone LLC, 77 AD3d 575, 579 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 706 [2011]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 597, 10 N.Y.S.3d 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oberry-v-gelco-corp-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack