From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vigio v. the New York Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 28, 1999
264 A.D.2d 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

September 28, 1999

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered on or about September 29, 1997, which granted defendants' motions for a disclosure sanction precluding plaintiffs from using at trial a videotape depicting a day in the life of their decedent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Fred Yalkowsky for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Patricia D'Alvia, Beth L. Kaufman, James P. Tenney and Robert W. Finke for Defendants-Respondents.

Michael N. Stevens for Defendant-Respondent.

ROSENBERGER, J.P., WILLIAMS, RUBIN, SAXE, BUCKLEY, JJ.


Preclusion of the video was properly granted in view of the preliminary conference order directing the parties to exchange any photographs, "including motion pictures"; plaintiffs' false certification in their note of issue that disclosure was complete when, in fact, the video in question had already been made but not disclosed; and the undue prejudice caused defendants by plaintiffs' unnecessarily belated disclosure of the video shortly before the trial was scheduled to begin (see, Red Apple Supermarkets v. Malone Hyde, 251 A.D.2d 78). As the IAS court emphasized, the death of plaintiffs' decedent after the video was made and the death of defendants' examining physician before the video was disclosed, significantly compromise defendants' ability to refute the decedent's condition as depicted in the video.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Vigio v. the New York Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 28, 1999
264 A.D.2d 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Vigio v. the New York Hospital

Case Details

Full title:RAMON VIGIO, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE NEW YORK…

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

Date published: Sep 28, 1999

Citations

264 A.D.2d 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
696 N.Y.S.2d 19

Citing Cases

Rancano v. Chase Manhattan Bank

Plaintiff's submissions raise an issue of fact as to whether the corridor in which she fell was dangerously…

Manrique v. Warshaw Woolen Associates, Inc.

When the parties could not agree, motion practice ensued, and resulted in the subject order, which, without…