Busse v. Clark Equipment Co.
| Decision Date | 16 April 1992 |
| Parties | Ernest BUSSE, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, et al., Defendants. CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, v. JAPAN AIR LINES COMPANY, LTD., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Damashek, Godosky & Gentile, Alexander J. Wulwick, Appellate Counsel, New York City, for plaintiffs-respondents.
Goldblum & DiCicco, Brooklyn (Deborah F. Peters, of counsel), for third-party defendant-appellant Japan Air Lines Co. Ltd.
Amon & Sabatini, New York City, for defendant and third-party plaintiff Clark Equipment Co.
Jeffrey S. Richman, New York City, for defendant Clarklift of New York, Inc.
Semel, Schepp, Yuhas & Adams, New York City, Trial Counsel for Japan Air Lines.
Before MURPHY, P.J., and SULLIVAN, ROSENBERGER and RUBIN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered December 2, 1991, which denied the motion of the third-party defendant Japan Air Lines Company, Ltd., to preclude plaintiffs from introducing expert testimony or other expert proof at trial, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the motion granted, unless, within 45 days of service upon plaintiffs of a copy of this order with notice of entry, (1) plaintiffs serve proper responses to the third-party defendant's CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) request and (2) plaintiffs' counsel pay to the third-party defendant Japan Air Lines $500 costs.
The third-party defendant Japan Air moved to preclude due to plaintiffs' admittedly "non-comprehensive" responses to Japan Air's request for information regarding the anticipated testimony of plaintiffs' experts pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i). The statute, in part, provides, "upon request, each party shall identify each person whom the party expects to call as an expert witness at trial and shall disclose in reasonable detail the subject matter on which each expert is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions on which each expert is expected to testify, the qualifications of each expert witness and a summary of the grounds for each expert's opinion...." Plaintiffs' numerous responses to Japan Air's request in this case fail to set forth the substance of the facts or opinions to be testified to by the named experts, and no qualifications have been supplied with respect to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. Isabella Geriatric Ctr., Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 31919(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 8/21/2009)
...contumacious, or the result of bad faith" (Id. at 599), and there is a showing of prejudice to defendant. Busse v. Clark Equipment Co., 182 A.D.2d 525 (1st Dep't 1992). Before an order of preclusion is entered, a party should be afforded "a Page 7 opportunity" to comply with the discovery d......
-
Kalish v. HEI Hospitality, LLC, Index No. 102657/09
...there is no indication that any such failure was intentional or willful or prejudicial to defendants. See Busse v, Clark Equipment Co., 182 A.D.2d 525 (1st Dep't...
-
Laukaitis v. Ski Stop, Inc.
... ... matter on which [the] expert is expected to testify" (CPLR 3101[d][1][i]; see generally, Busse v ... Clark Equip. Co., 182 A.D.2d 525, 583 N.Y.S.2d 243) ... Accordingly, the ... ...
- Tortorello v. Carlin
-
Identity crisis: the obsolescence of Jasopersaud v. Rho and the medical malpractice expert exception.
...however, must show that she has been prejudiced by her opponent's failure to comply with CPLR 3101. Busse v. Clark Equip. Co., 583 N.Y.S.2d 243, 244 (1st Dep't 1992) (describing preclusion as an "extreme remedy"); see also Putchlawski v. Diaz, 597 N.Y.S.2d 10, 11 (1st Dep't 1993) ("[CPLR 31......