Roa v. F.W. Woolworth Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roa v. F.W. Woolworth Co.

189 A.D.2d 689, 592 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 361

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 A.D.2d 689 (Roa v. F.W. Woolworth Co.) 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

Roa v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 189 A.D.2d 689, 592 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered September 6, 1991, which, inter alia, precluded defendant KBI Security Service, Inc. from calling as a witness at the trial of this action any person alleged to have been the security guard involved in the incident in question, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to preclude said defendant from calling as a witness any person other than Joseph Santiago alleged to have been the security guard involved in the incident in question, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

.While it is within a court’s discretion to impose sanctions for conduct which "frustrates the disclosure scheme provided by the CPLR” (Zletz v Wetanson, 67 NY2d 711, 713), the sanction imposed is greater than is required to vindicate the statutory scheme. Defendant-appellant’s actions in giving the name and address only of the person plaintiff alleged to have assaulted and improperly detained her while denying his involvement was not an act which should preclude said defendant from calling that person to testify. However, as said defendant named no other person, the order of preclusion should stand as to all other persons. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered September 6, 1991, which, inter alia, precluded defendant KBI Security Service, Inc. from calling as a witness at the trial of this action any person alleged to have been the security guard involved in the incident in question, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to preclude said defendant from calling as a witness any person other than Joseph Santiago alleged to have been the security guard involved in the incident in question, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

.While it is within a court’s discretion to impose sanctions for conduct which "frustrates the disclosure scheme provided by the CPLR” (Zletz v Wetanson, 67 NY2d 711, 713), the sanction imposed is greater than is required to vindicate the statutory scheme. Defendant-appellant’s actions in giving the name and address only of the person plaintiff alleged to have assaulted and improperly detained her while denying his involvement was not an act which should preclude said defendant from calling that person to testify. However, as said defendant named no other person, the order of preclusion should stand as to all other persons. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D.2d 689, 592 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roa-v-fw-woolworth-co-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack