Vera v. Beth Israel Medical Center

175 A.D.2d 716
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 8, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 175 A.D.2d 716 (Vera v. Beth Israel Medical Center) 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
Vera v. Beth Israel Medical Center, 175 A.D.2d 716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered on or about January 29, 1990, which granted defendants’ motion to preclude plaintiffs from producing a non-party witness at trial or using said witness’s incomplete deposition transcript at trial without first producing her for completed deposition within fifteen days prior to trial, unanimously modified on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion to deny that portion of the motion seeking to preclude the use at trial of the deposition transcript, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs assert that the non-party witness, who is the sister of plaintiff Josephine Vera, is not in their control within the meaning of CPLR 3126. Fairness dictates that, having taken such position, plaintiffs not be allowed to maintain the option of simply producing the witness at trial to testify in their behalf if at a future time they should obtain control over her, without first allowing the defendants to complete her pre-trial deposition, which was terminated after one day.

On the other hand, there is no similar presumptive unfair[717]*717ness in permitting them to introduce at trial portions of the deposition already taken, provided that an appropriate foundation is laid for its admission into evidence. (CPLR 3117.) The fact that defendants may have contemplated further deposing the witness does not, on its own, preclude use of the deposition that they themselves had already taken. Thus, a decision precluding admissibility of the deposition is premature at this time, and should await trial subject to the Trial Judge’s discretion as to whether prejudice would ensue in the use of any particular portions of the examination sought to be introduced by reason of the examination’s incompleteness. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

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

Related

Amirov v. Turtle Bay Tavern Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026
335 E. 70th Realty Inc. v. Potente
2025 NY Slip Op 51488(U) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Rinker v. 55 Motor Ave. Co., LLC
2019 NY Slip Op 4796 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Hernandez v. City of New York
100 A.D.3d 433 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Farmer v. Nostrand Avenue Meat & Poultry
37 A.D.3d 653 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Maillard v. Maillard
243 A.D.2d 448 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
175 A.D.2d 716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vera-v-beth-israel-medical-center-nyappdiv-1991.