Roa v. F.W. Woolworth Co.

Full title: VIANCA ROA, Respondent, v. F.W. WOOLWORTH CO. et al., Defendants, and KBI…

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

Date published: Jan 19, 1993

189 A.D.2d 689 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

585 N.Y.S.2d 186

Opinion

January 19, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.).

While it is within a court's discretion to impose sanctions for conduct which "frustrates the disclosure scheme provided by the CPLR" (Zletz v. Wetanson, 67 N.Y.2d 711, 713), the sanction imposed is greater than is required to vindicate the statutory scheme. Defendant-appellant's actions in giving the name and address only of the person plaintiff alleged to have assaulted and improperly detained her while denying his involvement was not an act which should preclude said defendant from calling that person to testify. However, as said defendant named no other person, the order of preclusion should stand as to all other persons.

Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Rubin, JJ.