MOORE REASON v. [And a Third–Party Action] (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered October 6, 2023, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant college's motion insofar as it sought to strike plaintiff's errata sheet, unanimously reversed, without costs, and the motion to strike the errata sheet granted.

Supreme Court providently declined to strike the errata sheet as untimely (see CPLR 2004;  3116[a];  Orenstein v. 301 E. 78 St. Owners Corp., 231 A.D.3d 626, 627, 219 N.Y.S.3d 59 [1st Dept. 2024]).  Plaintiff made “a strong showing of justification” for the 16–day delay in meeting the statutory deadline to serve an executed copy of her deposition with errata, averring that the delay was attributable to the sudden death of her cousin and the time she spent making funeral arrangements and consoling family members (Zamir v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 304 A.D.2d 493, 494, 758 N.Y.S.2d 645 [1st Dept. 2003] [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Binh v. Bagland USA, 286 A.D.2d 613, 614, 730 N.Y.S.2d 317 [1st Dept. 2001]).

However, plaintiff's explanations for her changes were inadequate in the face of defendant's motion to strike (cf.  Mojica v. Church of the Immaculate Conception, 219 A.D.3d 1252, 1253, 195 N.Y.S.3d 479 [1st Dept. 2023];  Cillo v. Resjefal Corp., 295 A.D.2d 257, 257, 743 N.Y.S.2d 860 [1st Dept. 2002]), as the proffered corrections are critical, substantive changes that may materially alter plaintiff's original deposition testimony as to the basis for defendant's alleged negligence, specifically, liquid on the floor causing plaintiff to slip (cf.  Jackson v. Adfia Realty, LLC, 171 A.D.3d 477, 477, 97 N.Y.S.3d 111 [1st Dept. 2019]).