From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shmueli v. Corcoran Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 2, 2006
29 A.D.3d 309 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Summary

In Shmueli, the witnesses were not allowed to testify because the plaintiff failed to notify the defendants until the eve of trial as to their availability, even though the plaintiff learned of them during discovery.

Summary of this case from Mayorga v. Jocarl & Ron Co.

Opinion

8446.

May 2, 2006.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about January 3, 2006, which denied plaintiff's motion to add three more people to his witness list, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Morris Duffy Alonso Faley, New York (Barry M. Viuker of counsel), for appellant.

Saul Ewing, LLP, New York (Michael A. Rowe of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.


Plaintiff's only excuse for failing to notify defendants of various witnesses until the eve of trial is that her delay in learning their identities was due to defendants' reluctance in producing its witnesses for depositions during the discovery period. This excuse is belied by the fact that she never attributed her discovery of these individuals to statements made by defendants' witnesses at their depositions. Rather, plaintiff allegedly learned of them through the depositions of three people who, at her request, were deposed only after the trial was scheduled, and at the time of her request she offered no reason for the delay. We see no improvident exercise of discretion in precluding plaintiff from calling these individuals as witnesses ( see e.g. Kauffman v. Triborough Bridge Tunnel Auth., 295 AD2d 171, 172).


Summaries of

Shmueli v. Corcoran Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 2, 2006
29 A.D.3d 309 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

In Shmueli, the witnesses were not allowed to testify because the plaintiff failed to notify the defendants until the eve of trial as to their availability, even though the plaintiff learned of them during discovery.

Summary of this case from Mayorga v. Jocarl & Ron Co.
Case details for

Shmueli v. Corcoran Group

Case Details

Full title:SARIT SHMUELI, Appellant, v. CORCORAN GROUP et al., Respondents

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

Date published: May 2, 2006

Citations

29 A.D.3d 309 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 3456
816 N.Y.S.2d 410

Citing Cases

Mayorga v. Jocarl & Ron Co.

Plaintiff fails to make any indication whatsoever that she conducted an investigation on her own regarding…

Rosa v. New York City Transit Authority

Further, counsel for the Transit Authority told the jury in summation that the evidence showed that Bravo's…