Sanchez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanchez v. City of New York

266 A.D.2d 127, 698 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12050

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 127 (Sanchez v. City of New York) 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

Sanchez v. City of New York, 266 A.D.2d 127, 698 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12050 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered July 21, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the motion of defendant Mystic Transportation, Inc. (Mystic) to preclude plaintiff, pursuant to CPLR 3126 (2), from offering or relying on photographs at trial to prove negligence on the part of Mystic or from introducing evidence as to any claim for special damages against Mystic, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s numerous and unexplained failures to comply with longstanding and still outstanding discovery obligations justify the inference that her noncompliance with discovery has been willful and contumacious (see, Cano v BLF Realty Holding Corp., 243 AD2d 390; Glasburgh v Port Auth., 193 AD2d 441). Accordingly, the IAS Court properly precluded plaintiff, pursuant to CPLR 3126 (2), from introducing or from relying upon the aforementioned evidence in her case against Mystic. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered July 21, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the motion of defendant Mystic Transportation, Inc. (Mystic) to preclude plaintiff, pursuant to CPLR 3126 (2), from offering or relying on photographs at trial to prove negligence on the part of Mystic or from introducing evidence as to any claim for special damages against Mystic, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s numerous and unexplained failures to comply with longstanding and still outstanding discovery obligations justify the inference that her noncompliance with discovery has been willful and contumacious (see, Cano v BLF Realty Holding Corp., 243 AD2d 390; Glasburgh v Port Auth., 193 AD2d 441). Accordingly, the IAS Court properly precluded plaintiff, pursuant to CPLR 3126 (2), from introducing or from relying upon the aforementioned evidence in her case against Mystic. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 127, 698 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack