Thomas v. James Wu & Sons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. James Wu & Sons

197 A.D.2d 422, 602 N.Y.S.2d 390

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 197 A.D.2d 422 (Thomas v. James Wu & Sons) 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

Thomas v. James Wu & Sons, 197 A.D.2d 422, 602 N.Y.S.2d 390 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered February 3, 1993, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to take the deposition of plaintiff’s expert, her former employer, on the subject of plaintiff’s past and future lost earnings, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 24, 1992, unanimously dismissed as superceded by the appeal from the order of February 3, 1993, without costs.

Examination before trial of plaintiff’s former employer is warranted in view of plaintiff’s late disclosure of her intent to use him as an expert (CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]), and plaintiff’s failure to submit her tax returns and other documents relating to her earnings from modeling jobs in Europe. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered February 3, 1993, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to take the deposition of plaintiff’s expert, her former employer, on the subject of plaintiff’s past and future lost earnings, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 24, 1992, unanimously dismissed as superceded by the appeal from the order of February 3, 1993, without costs.

Examination before trial of plaintiff’s former employer is warranted in view of plaintiff’s late disclosure of her intent to use him as an expert (CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]), and plaintiff’s failure to submit her tax returns and other documents relating to her earnings from modeling jobs in Europe. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 422, 602 N.Y.S.2d 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-james-wu-sons-nyappdiv-1993.