From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ehler v. New York Congregational Nursing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 3, 2002
295 A.D.2d 311 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

01-11123, 02-01098

Argued April 2, 2002

June 3, 2002

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Strescon Industries, Inc., appeals (1), by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mason, J.), dated November 8, 2001, which, sua sponte, precluded it from presenting evidence or documents at the trial for failure to comply with court-ordered disclosure; and (2) from an order of the same court, dated January 28, 2002, which denied its motion to vacate the order dated November 8, 2001.

Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young Yagerman Tarallo, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Lawrence M. Cohen and Mark Yagerman of counsel), for appellant.

Shearer Essner, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey Gralnick of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Cartafalsa, Slattery Kelly, New York, N.Y. (Raymond F. Slattery of counsel), for defendants third-party and second third-party plaintiffs-respondents and third-party defendant-respondent.

O'Connor, O'Connor, Hintz Deveney, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (William F. Gormley of counsel), for second third-party defendants-respondents.

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the contention of the appellant Strescon Industries, Inc. (hereinafter Strescon), the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding it from presenting evidence or documents at the trial for failure to comply with court-ordered disclosure (see CPLR 3126; cf. Brown v. United Christian Evangelistic Association, 270 A.D.2d 378).

In support of its motion to vacate the order of preclusion, Strescon failed to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for its failure to timely comply with court-ordered disclosure and a meritorious defense (see Alphonse v. UBJ Inc., 266 A.D.2d 171; cf. Gorokhova v. Belulovich, 267 A.D.2d 202, 203). Thus, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying such relief (see CPLR 3126; cf. Brown v. United Christian Evangelistic Assn., supra).

RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ehler v. New York Congregational Nursing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 3, 2002
295 A.D.2d 311 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Ehler v. New York Congregational Nursing

Case Details

Full title:JOHN EHLER, plaintiff-respondent, v. NEW YORK CONGREGATIONAL NURSING…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 3, 2002

Citations

295 A.D.2d 311 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
743 N.Y.S.2d 875