Opinion
December 10, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Ira Gammerman, J.
We agree with the IAS Court that the failure of defendants Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority and Vasquez to retain an expert medical witness until the eve of trial was the result of their failure to prepare for trial, and not a response to plaintiff's disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101. Under these circumstances, where defendants did not establish "good cause" for failing to identify the expert and provide disclosure as mandated by CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i), it cannot be said that the trial court's decision to preclude defendants' expert testimony was an abuse of discretion.
Under the facts of this case, defendants could not establish that a charge on successive tortfeasors was required in the absence of expert testimony.
We have reviewed the remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. We remand on the limited ground that the court erred in awarding prejudgment interest, as plaintiff concedes.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.