From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haskell v. Carlson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 30, 1992
188 A.D.2d 1087 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

December 30, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Ricotta, J.

Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Balio, Davis and Doerr, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion granted. Memorandum: The court abused its discretion in denying defendant Hebner's motion pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) for permission to retain an accident reconstruction expert and to introduce that testimony at trial. Defendant Hebner's attorneys were not present when the attorneys for plaintiffs and the attorneys for certain other defendants entered into a stipulation setting forth a schedule for disclosure of expert witnesses and other discovery, and plaintiffs failed to show by an affidavit of service with notice of entry that they served defendant Hebner's attorneys with the court's order binding the parties to that stipulation. It therefore was error to bind defendant Hebner to the terms of the stipulation and to the order. We note in addition that there was no showing of prejudice to plaintiffs or intentional or willful nondisclosure by defendant Hebner (see, Lillis v D'Souza, 174 A.D.2d 976, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 858).


Summaries of

Haskell v. Carlson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 30, 1992
188 A.D.2d 1087 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Haskell v. Carlson

Case Details

Full title:STEVE R. HASKELL, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of BECKY…

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

Date published: Dec 30, 1992

Citations

188 A.D.2d 1087 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
591 N.Y.S.2d 673

Citing Cases

Peck v. Tired Iron Transport, Inc.

The court directed that defendant be provided with a copy of the expert's report. Because there is no…