From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Corning v. Carlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 23, 1991
178 A.D.2d 576 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

December 23, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for legal malpractice in 1986, alleging that the defendant had negligently represented her in a matrimonial action. In September 1986 the defendant served a demand for expert information pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) (1). The demand was a "continuing demand, requiring the disclosure of information whenever it is received". The plaintiff never responded to the demand. The trial began in August 1989, nearly three years later. When the plaintiff called her first witness, an expert, the defendant moved to preclude his testimony on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to disclose the existence of her expert. The trial court granted the defendant's motion.

CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) requires a party to disclose his or her expert witness and certain expert information prior to trial when served with a proper demand. The statute also provides, however, that "where a party for good cause shown retains an expert an insufficient period of time before the commencement of trial to give appropriate notice thereof, the party shall not thereupon be precluded from introducing the expert's testimony at the trial solely on grounds of noncompliance with this paragraph" (CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i] [emphasis added]). In this case, the plaintiff failed to show good cause why she did not retain an expert until the very eve of trial and then failed to disclose his existence until after opening statements had been made. Under such circumstances, the trial court's preclusion order was proper (see, Simpson v Bellew, 161 A.D.2d 693, 698; Zarrelli v Littauer Hosp., 176 A.D.2d 1181). To the extent that the decision of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in Lillis v D'Souza, ( 174 A.D.2d 976) may be read to be contrary, we decline to follow it.

We have considered the plaintiff's remaining contention and find that it is without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Corning v. Carlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 23, 1991
178 A.D.2d 576 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Corning v. Carlin

Case Details

Full title:ROSANNE CORNING, Appellant, v. ANDREW CARLIN, Respondent

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

Date published: Dec 23, 1991

Citations

178 A.D.2d 576 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
577 N.Y.S.2d 474

Citing Cases

Marks v. Solomon

Obviously, such relief was granted despite the fact that all of the necessary expert opinion information was…

Marks v. Solomon

Obviously, such relief was granted despite the fact that all of the necessary expert opinion information was…