Perez v. Vasquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perez v. Vasquez

66 A.D.2d 494, 885 N.Y.S.2d 902

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

DecidedOctober 13, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.2d 494 (Perez v. Vasquez) 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

Perez v. Vasquez, 66 A.D.2d 494, 885 N.Y.S.2d 902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered September 10, 2008, which granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answer and proceed to trial on damages only, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the answer reinstated, defendant Frank Livery Service precluded from offering any evidence at plenary trial unless it produces a witness for deposition within 60 days of the date of this order, and pays [495]*495the entire costs of this deposition, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court’s prior orders provided preclusion as the remedy for failure to comply with disclosure (see Anderson v RC Dolner, Inc., 43 AD3d 837 [2007]). Under the facts of this case, we find conditional preclusion of only Frank Livery Service’s case to be a more appropriate sanction (see Magee v City of New York, 242 AD2d 239 [1997]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered September 10, 2008, which granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answer and proceed to trial on damages only, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the answer reinstated, defendant Frank Livery Service precluded from offering any evidence at plenary trial unless it produces a witness for deposition within 60 days of the date of this order, and pays [495]*495the entire costs of this deposition, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court’s prior orders provided preclusion as the remedy for failure to comply with disclosure (see Anderson v RC Dolner, Inc., 43 AD3d 837 [2007]). Under the facts of this case, we find conditional preclusion of only Frank Livery Service’s case to be a more appropriate sanction (see Magee v City of New York, 242 AD2d 239 [1997]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 494, 885 N.Y.S.2d 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-vasquez-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack