Vitello v. JAM Installers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vitello v. JAM Installers, Inc.

264 A.D.2d 774, 695 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9258

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 20, 1999·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered October 1, 1998, as denied their motion to extend the time to complete discovery, compel the plaintiffs to comply with their notice to produce, and compel the injured plaintiff to submit to physical examinations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants forfeited their right to conduct physical examinations of the injured plaintiff and to have the plaintiffs comply with further discovery when they failed to complete the plaintiffs’ depositions and submit to their own depositions as scheduled by the court at numerous pretrial conferences over a three-year period (see, Gigliotti v Allstate Ins. Co., 258 AD2d 559; Gill v United Parcel Serv., 249 AD2d 265; Kanterman v Palmiotti, 122 AD2d 116; Levine v McFarland, 98 AD2d 795). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion, inter alia, to compel discovery. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, 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, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered October 1, 1998, as denied their motion to extend the time to complete discovery, compel the plaintiffs to comply with their notice to produce, and compel the injured plaintiff to submit to physical examinations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants forfeited their right to conduct physical examinations of the injured plaintiff and to have the plaintiffs comply with further discovery when they failed to complete the plaintiffs’ depositions and submit to their own depositions as scheduled by the court at numerous pretrial conferences over a three-year period (see, Gigliotti v Allstate Ins. Co., 258 AD2d 559; Gill v United Parcel Serv., 249 AD2d 265; Kanterman v Palmiotti, 122 AD2d 116; Levine v McFarland, 98 AD2d 795). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion, inter alia, to compel discovery. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Vitello v. JAM Installers, Inc., 264 A.D.2d 774, 695 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9258 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

264 A.D.2d 774 (Vitello v. JAM Installers, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related