Opinion
8140N Index 308657/11
01-17-2019
Wanda BANKS–DALRYMPLE, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Judy CHANG, D.D.S., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Katherine Herr Solomon of counsel), for appellants. Burns & Harris, New York (Jason S. Steinberg of counsel), for respondent.
Mauro Lilling Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Katherine Herr Solomon of counsel), for appellants.
Burns & Harris, New York (Jason S. Steinberg of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Gische, Mazzarelli, Kahn, JJ.
Although the Court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a mistrial for defendant's counsel's violation of the court's in limine ruling, we find that a curative instruction, together with a striking of the impermissible parts of the record, would have sufficed. Accordingly, having declared the mistrial, it was a proper exercise of the court's discretion to sanction defendants' counsel, for its prejudicial questioning of plaintiff on a matter ruled inadmissable (Rules of Chief Admin. of Cts. [ 22 NYCRR] § 130–1.1 ; Pickens v. Castro, 55 A.D.3d 443, 444, 867 N.Y.S.2d 47 [1st Dept. 2008] ). We, however, reduce the sanctions and direct that upon receipt of proof of payment to plaintiff's experts, defendant's counsel must reimburse plaintiff's counsel within 10 days.
We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.