Williams v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. New York City Transit Authority

57 A.D.3d 975, 869 N.Y.2d 799

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 975 (Williams v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Williams v. New York City Transit Authority, 57 A.D.3d 975, 869 N.Y.2d 799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[976]*976The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see CPLR 3126 [2]; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122-123 [1999]; Suazo-Alvarez v Nordlaw, LLC, 48 AD3d 670, 670-671 [2008]; Lotardo v Lotardo, 31 AD3d 504 [2006]). There is nothing in the record that warrants disturbing the Supreme Court’s exercise of discretion in this case. The Supreme Court could have properly inferred the willful and deliberate character of the plaintiffs’ conduct from their failures, over an eight-year period, to disclose the names of two nonparty witnesses (see Frenk v Frederick, 38 AD3d 593 [2007]; Moog v City of New York, 30 AD3d 490, 491 [2006]; cf. Bermudez v Laminates Unlimited, 134 AD2d 314 [1987]). Under the circumstances, precluding the testimony of or any other evidence obtained from two nonparty witnesses was proper (see Frenk v Frederick, 38 AD3d 593 [2007]; Moog v City of New York, 30 AD3d at 491; see also Andujar v Benenson Inv. Co., 299 AD2d 503 [2002]; Ortega v New York City Tr. Auth., 262 AD2d 470 [1999]). Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

[976]*976The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see CPLR 3126 [2]; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122-123 [1999]; Suazo-Alvarez v Nordlaw, LLC, 48 AD3d 670, 670-671 [2008]; Lotardo v Lotardo, 31 AD3d 504 [2006]). There is nothing in the record that warrants disturbing the Supreme Court’s exercise of discretion in this case. The Supreme Court could have properly inferred the willful and deliberate character of the plaintiffs’ conduct from their failures, over an eight-year period, to disclose the names of two nonparty witnesses (see Frenk v Frederick, 38 AD3d 593 [2007]; Moog v City of New York, 30 AD3d 490, 491 [2006]; cf. Bermudez v Laminates Unlimited, 134 AD2d 314 [1987]). Under the circumstances, precluding the testimony of or any other evidence obtained from two nonparty witnesses was proper (see Frenk v Frederick, 38 AD3d 593 [2007]; Moog v City of New York, 30 AD3d at 491; see also Andujar v Benenson Inv. Co., 299 AD2d 503 [2002]; Ortega v New York City Tr. Auth., 262 AD2d 470 [1999]). Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 975, 869 N.Y.2d 799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack