UNITED MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION v. YAKOBASHVILI (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered April 18, 2025, which denied defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs' expert disclosure and to preclude the expert from testifying at trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendants' motion (see CPLR 3101[d][1];  Rivera v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 28 N.Y.3d 999, 1001–1002, 41 N.Y.S.3d 454, 64 N.E.3d 274 [2016]) and finding that plaintiffs' expert disclosure filing was not untimely (see Louise v. Hampton Jitney, Inc., 193 A.D.3d 514, 514, 141 N.Y.S.3d 851 [1st Dept. 2021]).  The record does not show that the delay in plaintiffs' expert disclosure was due to willful noncompliance or that defendants were prejudiced by the belated disclosure, particularly given that defendants were on notice that plaintiffs intended to engage an economist such as a CPA as an expert witness (see Martin v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 73 A.D.3d 481, 482, 901 N.Y.S.2d 193 [1st Dept. 2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 713, 2010 WL 4643900 [2010];  see also St. Hilaire v. White, 305 A.D.2d 209, 210, 759 N.Y.S.2d 74 [1st Dept. 2003]).  Further, Supreme Court's adjournment of the matter to provide defendants time to engage a rebuttal expert if they deemed one necessary was appropriate to prevent any prejudice (see Colome v. Grand Concourse 2075, 302 A.D.2d 251, 251–252, 754 N.Y.S.2d 536 [1st Dept. 2003]).