Wathne Imports, Ltd. v. PLR USA, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wathne Imports, Ltd. v. PLR USA, Inc.

125 A.D.3d 434, 998 N.Y.S.2d 890

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 2015

Docket603250/05 -14144 14143 14142

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 125 A.D.3d 434 (Wathne Imports, Ltd. v. PLR USA, Inc.) 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

Wathne Imports, Ltd. v. PLR USA, Inc., 125 A.D.3d 434, 998 N.Y.S.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered March 13, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ motion in limine to preclude plaintiffs CEO from offering any testimony on damages, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, and the motion denied. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered April 4, 2014, which denied plaintiffs motion to renew defendants’ motion to preclude, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot. Order, same court and Justice, entered July 23, 2014, which denied plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3101 (h) to supplement its discovery responses on the issue of damages, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, and the motion granted.

Under the circumstances of this case, the in limine order granting defendants’ motion to prelude that witness’s testimony on damages is appealable.

Plaintiffs CEO has the requisite personal knowledge of the relevant business areas and information to render her competent to testify as to plaintiffs lost profits, including offering estimates or projections of lost sales and profits (see Ashland Mgt. v Janien, 82 NY2d 395, 406 [1993]; Greasy Spoon v Jefferson Towers, 75 NY2d 792, 795-796 [1990]). The witness had been CEO of plaintiff throughout plaintiffs 25-year relationship with defendants, and had participated in all relevant aspects of plaintiffs business. The weaknesses identified by defendants in the witness’s analysis bear on the credibility, not the admissibility, of her testimony (see e.g. Wathne Imports, Ltd. v PRL USA, Inc., 101 AD3d 83, 89 [1st Dept 2012]).

As plaintiffs motion to supplement its discovery responses on damages was denied on the sole ground that the CEO’s testimony was inadmissible, the denial of that motion was also error. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Richter and Gische, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2014 NY Slip Op 30261(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered March 13, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ motion in limine to preclude plaintiffs CEO from offering any testimony on damages, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, and the motion denied. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered April 4, 2014, which denied plaintiffs motion to renew defendants’ motion to preclude, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot. Order, same court and Justice, entered July 23, 2014, which denied plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3101 (h) to supplement its discovery responses on the issue of damages, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, and the motion granted.

Under the circumstances of this case, the in limine order granting defendants’ motion to prelude that witness’s testimony on damages is appealable.

Plaintiffs CEO has the requisite personal knowledge of the relevant business areas and information to render her competent to testify as to plaintiffs lost profits, including offering estimates or projections of lost sales and profits (see Ashland Mgt. v Janien, 82 NY2d 395, 406 [1993]; Greasy Spoon v Jefferson Towers, 75 NY2d 792, 795-796 [1990]). The witness had been CEO of plaintiff throughout plaintiffs 25-year relationship with defendants, and had participated in all relevant aspects of plaintiffs business. The weaknesses identified by defendants in the witness’s analysis bear on the credibility, not the admissibility, of her testimony (see e.g. Wathne Imports, Ltd. v PRL USA, Inc., 101 AD3d 83, 89 [1st Dept 2012]).

As plaintiffs motion to supplement its discovery responses on damages was denied on the sole ground that the CEO’s testimony was inadmissible, the denial of that motion was also error. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Richter and Gische, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2014 NY Slip Op 30261(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.3d 434, 998 N.Y.S.2d 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wathne-imports-ltd-v-plr-usa-inc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack