Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
John WHITFIELD, appellant, v. STATE of New York, respondent.
In a claim to recover damages for dental malpractice, the claimant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Court of Claims (Mignano, J.), dated July 6, 2005, as denied those branches of his motion which were to impose a sanction pursuant to CPLR 3126 and to preclude the defendant from offering evidence at trial based on its failure to provide court-ordered disclosure.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant complied with the portion of a prior order dated February 28, 2005, directing it to provide an affidavit of a person with knowledge of the dental record-keeping practice of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (hereinafter the DOCS) regarding the existence of any possible X-ray films of the claimant's mouth taken on April 20, 1992, by providing an affidavit from the Dental Director of the DOCS which complied with these requirements (see Bivona v. Trump Mar. Casino Hotel Resort, 11 A.D.3d 574, 575, 782 N.Y.S.2d 667).
The defendant also substantially complied with that portion of the order dated February 28, 2005, which conditionally precluded it from offering evidence at trial regarding matters of which particulars were not given pursuant to written demands by serving a bill of particulars (see Barlow v. Werner Co., 295 A.D.2d 381, 743 N.Y.S.2d 731; Papis v. St. Vincent's Med. Ctr., 227 A.D.2d 601, 602, 643 N.Y.S.2d 389). Thus, under the circumstances of this case, the Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the claimant's motion which was to preclude the defendant from offering evidence at trial only to the extent of precluding those matters of which particulars demanded were not given in the bill of particulars served by the defendant.
The claimant's remaining contention is raised for the first time on appeal and is not properly before this court (see Glaser v. County of Orange, 22 A.D.3d 720, 721, 803 N.Y.S.2d 669; Matter of Smiler v. Board of Educ., 15 A.D.3d 409, 410, 790 N.Y.S.2d 53).
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: April 11, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)