Spreer v. Whitestone Savings, F.A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spreer v. Whitestone Savings, F.A.

194 A.D.2d 602, 598 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5996

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 7, 1993·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Don Hume Leathergoods, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Luciano, J.), entered April 30, 1991, as granted the plaintiff’s cross motion to preclude the appellant from adducing testimony from an expert at trial.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the cross motion is denied.

Since the case had not been placed on the court’s trial calendar and more discovery was to take place, and given the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff, the court erred in precluding the appellant from adducing expert testimony at trial for failure to respond to the plaintiff’s request to disclose information about its expert witness (see, CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]; cf. Corning v Carlin, 178 AD2d 576; see also, Aversa v Taubes, 194 AD2d 580 [decided herewith]; Lillis v D’Souza, 174 AD2d 976). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Don Hume Leathergoods, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Luciano, J.), entered April 30, 1991, as granted the plaintiff’s cross motion to preclude the appellant from adducing testimony from an expert at trial.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the cross motion is denied.

Since the case had not been placed on the court’s trial calendar and more discovery was to take place, and given the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff, the court erred in precluding the appellant from adducing expert testimony at trial for failure to respond to the plaintiff’s request to disclose information about its expert witness (see, CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]; cf. Corning v Carlin, 178 AD2d 576; see also, Aversa v Taubes, 194 AD2d 580 [decided herewith]; Lillis v D’Souza, 174 AD2d 976). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Spreer v. Whitestone Savings, F.A., 194 A.D.2d 602, 598 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5996 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

194 A.D.2d 602 (Spreer v. Whitestone Savings, F.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related