Koch v. Sheresky, Aronson & Mayefsky LLP

• Decision Date: 24 May 2018
• Docket Number: 6688N,6687,Index 112337/07,6686
• Citation: 78 N.Y.S.3d 20,161 A.D.3d 647
• Parties: Vladimira KOCH, etc., Plaintiff–Appellant, Michael Koch, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHERESKY, ARONSON & MAYEFSKY LLP, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

161 A.D.3d 647

78 N.Y.S.3d 20

Vladimira KOCH, etc., Plaintiff–Appellant,Michael Koch, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.SHERESKY, ARONSON & MAYEFSKY LLP, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

6686

6687

6688N

Index 112337/07

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

ENTERED: MAY 24, 2018

Andrew Lavoott Bluestone, New York, for appellant.

Traub Lieberman Strauss & Shrewsberry LLP, Hawthorne (Chelsea Four–Rosenbaum of counsel), for Sheresky, Aronson & Mayefsky LLP and David Aronson, respondents.

McManus Ateshoglou Adams Aiello & Apostolakos PLLC, New York (Christopher D. Skoczen of counsel), for Bragar, Wexler, Eagel & Morgenstern, P.C. and Raymond A. Bragar, respondents.

L'Abbate Balkan, Colavita & Contini, L.L.P., Garden City (Noah Nunberg of counsel), for Ragues & Min, Esqs. and Raymond Ragues, respondents.

Furman Kornfeld & Brennan LLP, New York (Rachel Aghassi of counsel), for D'Agostino & Salvi, LLP and Frank J. Salvi, respondents.

Renwick, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Mazzarelli, Kapnick, Kahn, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered December 15, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion to preclude plaintiff Vladimira Koch from testifying at trial, and denied plaintiff's cross motion to supplement or amend the complaint and for an advisory jury pursuant to CPLR 4212, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered October 14, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, ordered plaintiff to appear for a deposition on a specified date or be precluded from testifying at trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered February 22, 2016, which denied plaintiff's motion to reargue, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

We reject plaintiff's argument that the December 2015 order contravenes an April 2013 stipulation between the parties. The order does not contradict the stipulation in any material way. Indeed, plaintiff relies on superficial variations between the order and the stipulation to justify her refusal to comply with the order. In the stipulation, plaintiff agreed to appear for the continuation of her deposition from day to day until its completion. It is uncontested that she did not do so.

The court properly denied plaintiff's cross motion to supplement or amend the complaint. The 22 proposed causes of action against plaintiff Vladimira...