DAILEY v. KEITH (2004)

Court of Appeals of New York.

Randall D. DAILEY, Sr., et al., Respondents, v. Patricia KEITH et al., Appellants.

Decided: January 12, 2004

Davidson & O'Mara, P.C., Elmira (Ransom P. Reynolds, Jr., and Bryan J. Maggs of counsel), for appellants. Paul A. Argentieri, Hornell, for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM.

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. In exercising their discretion, the courts below did not err as a matter of law in refusing to allow the introduction of defendant's deposition testimony at trial as evidence-in-chief. By voluntarily leaving the state and refusing to return for trial, defendant procured her own absence and, therefore, failed to satisfy CPLR 3117(a)(3)(ii) (see United Bank v. Cambridge Sporting Goods Corp., 41 N.Y.2d 254, 264-265, 392 N.Y.S.2d 265, 360 N.E.2d 943 [1976] ). Thus, the deposition testimony was not admissible as of right.

Defendants' remaining contentions are either unpreserved or lacking in merit.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), orders affirmed, etc.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO and READ concur in memorandum.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network