Oversea Chinese Mission v. Well-Come Holdings, Inc.

8 Citing cases

  1. U.S. Bank Tr. v. 21647 LLC

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 2955 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

    Here, Plotch did not submit a proposed pleading with her motion for leave to intervene, nor did she submit an affidavit which in some cases may excuse the failure to attach a proposed pleading (see e.g. Heer v North Moore St. Devs., L.L.C., 140 A.D.3d 675, 676 [1st Dept 2016]; Ryder v Travelers Ins.Co., 37 A.D.2d 797 [4th Dept 1971]). Plotch's reliance on Oversea Chinese Mission v Well-Come Holdings, Inc. (145 A.D.3d 634 [1st Dept 2016]) for the proposition that no proposed pleading is required is misplaced. That case made no reference to CPLR 1014, which specifically provides that "[a] motion to intervene shall be accompanied by a proposed pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought" (emphasis added).

  2. Louise v. Hampton Jitney, Inc.

    193 A.D.3d 514 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    Rather, the issue is that defendant's expert reached his conclusion regarding the alleged accident by relying nearly entirely upon evidence, i.e., data from the bus's recording systems, that had been demanded during discovery and directed to be exchanged in several court orders, the existence of which defendant had denied. Defendant did not attempt to clarify its initial response, advise the motion court or plaintiff when it obtained the material, or explain why it did not update plaintiff's counsel immediately upon its receipt (seeOversea Chinese Mission v. Well–Come Holdings, Inc., 145 A.D.3d 634, 42 N.Y.S.3d 818 [1st Dept. 2016] ). Under such circumstances, the motion court was well within its discretion to preclude the material, and by extension, the expert and his report.

  3. Oppedisano v. Arnold

    191 A.D.3d 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in admitting into evidence the appraisal report prepared by the defendant's expert. Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs opened the door to admission of the appraisal report during their cross-examination of the defendant's expert (see Guide to N.Y. Evid rule 4.08, "Open Door" Evidence; cf.Oversea Chinese Mission v. Well–Come Holdings, Inc., 145 A.D.3d 634, 635, 42 N.Y.S.3d 818 ).

  4. Muniz v. ENT & Allergy Assocs.

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 32540 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    (Grandelli v Clyburn, 2019 NY Slip Op 31309[U], *2 [Sup Ct, NY County 2019] [Silvera, J.]). "[Willfulness can be inferred when a party repeatedly fails to respond to discovery demands and/or to comply with discovery orders, coupled with inadequate excuses for those defaults" (Oversea Chinese Mission v Well-Come Holdings, Inc., 145 A.D.3d 634, 635 [1st Dept 2016] [citation omitted]; see also Cooper v Metro. Transp. Auth., 186 A.D.3d 1150, 1151 [1st Dept 2020]).

  5. Jemb Realty Corp. v. New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC

    2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 32916 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    "Except where otherwise prescribed by order of the court, an . . . insured person who has executed to his insurer . . . a . . . subrogation receipt, . . . may sue or be sued without joining with him the person for or against whose interest the action is brought." Thus, a releasor-subrogor such as JEMB may prosecute a subrogation action in its own name, on behalf of its insurer-subrogee, here Liberty Mutual, without joining the latter as a party plaintiff (see Pennsylvania General Ins. Co. v Austin Powder Co., 68 NY2d 465, 470 n 3 [1986]), provided that the subrogor submits documentary proof in the form of an assignment or subrogation receipt (see id.; Oversea Chinese Mission v Well-Come Holdings, Inc., 145 AD3d 634, 635 [1st Dept 2016]). Inasmuch as JEMB has submitted the relevant subrogation receipt on this motion, it has demonstrated that it has standing to pursue Liberty Mutual's subrogation claims against the defendants.

  6. Fabian v. 1356 St. Nicholas Realty LLC

    2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 33685 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019)

    Willfulness may be inferred from a party's repeated failure to respond to discovery demands and/or to comply with discovery orders, combined with inadequate excuses for such conduct. See Oversea Chinese Mission v Well-Come Holdings, Inc., 145 AD3d 634 (1st Dept 2016) (citations omitted). Here, such willfulness can be inferred from plaintiff's failure to respond to Icell's demand for authorizations dated March 22, 2019; the court orders dated May and July 23, 2019 directing plaintiff to comply with the said demand within 30 days; and the good faith letter sent to plaintiff's attorney by Icell's counsel on August 28, 2019.

  7. Gonzalez v. Jaafar

    2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 30022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019)

    "[W]illfulness can be inferred when a party repeatedly fails to respond to discovery demands and/or to comply with discovery orders, coupled with inadequate excuses for those defaults." Oversea Chinese Mission v Well-Come Holdings, Inc., 145 AD3d 634, 635 (1st Dept 2016), quoting Siegman v Rosen, 270 AD2d 14, 15 (1st Dept 2000), citing CPLR 3126. This Court has broad discretion to determine the nature of the sanction to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126.

  8. Rivas v. City of N.Y.

    2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 30653 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)

    "[W]illfulness can be inferred when a party repeatedly fails to respond to discovery demands and/or to comply with discovery orders, coupled with inadequate excuses for those defaults." Oversea Chinese Mission v Well-Come Holdings, Inc., 145 AD3d 634, 635 (1st Dept 2016), quoting Siegman v Rosen, 270 AD2d 14, 15 (1st Dept 2000), citing CPLR 3126. This Court has broad discretion to determine the nature of the sanction to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126.