From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lisec v. Abrams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 1985
112 A.D.2d 145 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

July 1, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.).


Order affirmed, with costs.

This action was initially dismissed, without prejudice, for plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery orders. After the reinstitution of the action, plaintiff still failed to provide defendant City Limits Bar (hereinafter defendant) with doctors' reports notwithstanding the court's conditional order of preclusion and precalendar order directing him to serve the medical reports, as well as two letters sent by defendant's counsel to plaintiff, requesting that he comply with the court orders. Under these circumstances, Special Term could well find that plaintiff's failure to provide the reports was willful, and in its discretion, preclude testimony at the trial of the doctors involved. The mere fact that plaintiff's doctors were uncooperative in providing the reports does not relieve plaintiff of his burden of providing his adversary with the necessary documentation to prepare a defense (22 NYCRR 672.2; cf. Cramer v Toledo Scale Co., 89 A.D.2d 1059), and plaintiff freely admits that he never moved to compel the production of the reports in question. Bracken, J.P., O'Connor, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lisec v. Abrams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 1985
112 A.D.2d 145 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Lisec v. Abrams

Case Details

Full title:RUDY LISEC, Appellant, v. SARA K. ABRAMS et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jul 1, 1985

Citations

112 A.D.2d 145 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Erena v. Colavita Pasta Olive Oil Corp.

Further, the admission of Pickard's expert testimony would be prejudicial to defendants. Plaintiffs'…

Crowley v. Montefiore Hospital & Medical Center

Since plaintiffs first served their demand in July 1983, defendant hospital has been recalcitrant in its…