SANCHEZ v. Mystic Transportation, Inc., Defendant-Respondent. (1999)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Gloria SANCHEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Mystic Transportation, Inc., Defendant-Respondent.

Decided: November 23, 1999

SULLIVAN, J.P., WALLACH, RUBIN, SAXE and FRIEDMAN, JJ.

Jeffrey E. Litman, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Adam B. Rosen, for Defendant-Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered July 21, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the motion of defendant Mystic Transportation Inc. (Mystic) to preclude plaintiff, pursuant to CPLR 3126(2), from offering or relying on photographs at trial to prove negligence on the part of Mystic or from introducing evidence as to any claim for special damages against Mystic, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff's numerous and unexplained failures to comply with longstanding and still outstanding discovery obligations justify the inference that her noncompliance with discovery has been willful and contumacious (see, Cano v. BLF Realty Holding Corp., 243 A.D.2d 390, 663 N.Y.S.2d 202; Glasburgh v. Port Auth. of New York and New Jersey, 193 A.D.2d 441, 597 N.Y.S.2d 327). Accordingly, the IAS court properly precluded plaintiff, pursuant to CPLR 3126(2), from introducing or from relying upon the aforementioned evidence in her case against Mystic.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

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Out of date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!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law