Shell v. Kone Elevator Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shell v. Kone Elevator Co.

90 A.D.3d 890, 935 N.Y.2d 132

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

DecidedDecember 20, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 890 (Shell v. Kone Elevator 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

Shell v. Kone Elevator Co., 90 A.D.3d 890, 935 N.Y.2d 132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[891]*891Under CPLR 3116 (a), when the transcript of a witness’s deposition testimony is submitted for his or her examination, “any changes in form or substance which the witness desires to make shall be entered at the end of the deposition with a statement of the reasons given by the witness for making them.”

Here, the plaintiff made numerous, significant, substantive changes to her deposition testimony, taken in August 2007 and April 2010, on her errata sheet. However, the plaintiff did not provide a reason for any of those changes. Consequently, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Kone Elevator Co. (hereinafter Kone) which was to strike the plaintiff’s errata sheet (see Kelley v Empire Roller Skating Rink, Inc., 34 AD3d 533, 534 [2006]; Marzan v Persaud, 29 AD3d 652, 653 [2006]; Riley v ISS Intl. Serv. Sys., 284 AD2d 320 [2001]; cf. Cilio v Resjefal Corp., 295 AD2d 257 [2002]).

In light of our determination, Kone’s remaining contentions have been rendered academic. Dillon, J.P, Florio, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

[891]*891Under CPLR 3116 (a), when the transcript of a witness’s deposition testimony is submitted for his or her examination, “any changes in form or substance which the witness desires to make shall be entered at the end of the deposition with a statement of the reasons given by the witness for making them.”

Here, the plaintiff made numerous, significant, substantive changes to her deposition testimony, taken in August 2007 and April 2010, on her errata sheet. However, the plaintiff did not provide a reason for any of those changes. Consequently, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Kone Elevator Co. (hereinafter Kone) which was to strike the plaintiff’s errata sheet (see Kelley v Empire Roller Skating Rink, Inc., 34 AD3d 533, 534 [2006]; Marzan v Persaud, 29 AD3d 652, 653 [2006]; Riley v ISS Intl. Serv. Sys., 284 AD2d 320 [2001]; cf. Cilio v Resjefal Corp., 295 AD2d 257 [2002]).

In light of our determination, Kone’s remaining contentions have been rendered academic. Dillon, J.P, Florio, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 890, 935 N.Y.2d 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shell-v-kone-elevator-co-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack