Opinion
11852 Index 309853/08
07-16-2020
CENTER SHEET METAL, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. CANNON DESIGN, INC., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Perry, Van Etten, Rozanski & Kutner, LLP, Melville (Leonard Porcelli of counsel), for appellants. Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson (Nicholas P. Calabria of counsel), for Cannon Design, Inc. and Hartford Insurance Company, respondents. Weg & Myers, P.C., New York (Joshua L. Mallin of counsel), for Martin Associates, Inc., respondent. Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C., New York (Richard C. Imbrogno of counsel), for Lexington Insurance Company, respondent. Adrian & Associates, LLC, New York (Charles B. Bergin of counsel), for Burlington Insurance Company, respondent.
Perry, Van Etten, Rozanski & Kutner, LLP, Melville (Leonard Porcelli of counsel), for appellants.
Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson (Nicholas P. Calabria of counsel), for Cannon Design, Inc. and Hartford Insurance Company, respondents.
Weg & Myers, P.C., New York (Joshua L. Mallin of counsel), for Martin Associates, Inc., respondent.
Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C., New York (Richard C. Imbrogno of counsel), for Lexington Insurance Company, respondent.
Adrian & Associates, LLC, New York (Charles B. Bergin of counsel), for Burlington Insurance Company, respondent.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Gesmer, Oing, Singh, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laura G. Douglas, J.), entered on or about March 13, 2019, which denied plaintiffs' motion to allow the deposition of plaintiff Aspen Specialty Insurance Company to proceed, and precluded Aspen from offering any witness to testify at trial, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiffs violated the court's third conditional order of preclusion by failing to produce a witness for Aspen's scheduled deposition, and failed to demonstrate either a reasonable excuse for their failure to comply or a meritorious claim. Accordingly, the court properly denied their motion to allow the deposition to proceed (see Gibbs v. St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 N.Y.3d 74, 83, 917 N.Y.S.2d 68, 942 N.E.2d 277 [2010] ). Contrary to plaintiffs' argument, the court was not required to find that their failure to comply was willful ( Keller v. Merchant Capital Portfolios, LLC, 103 A.D.3d 532, 533, 962 N.Y.S.2d 48 [1st Dept. 2013] ).