Mankowski v. Two Park Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the use of an expert and any expert affidavit due to the plaintiffs’ failure to timely respond to disclosure demands (see, CPLR 3101 [d] [1]; Vigilant Ins. Co. v Barnes, 199 AD2d 257; Bauernfeind v Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp., 195 AD2d 819; Robinson v New York City Hous. Auth., 183 AD2d 434, 435). Accordingly, summary judgment was warranted as the plaintiffs could not make a prima facie showing that the respondents either created the alleged defective condition that caused the injured plaintiff’s fall or that they had actual or…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Trimarco v. KleinNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Murphy v. ConnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
- Pirillo v. Longwood Associates, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Vigilant Insurance v. BarnesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Grassel v. Albany Medical Center HopitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Ortega v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Mroz v. Ella Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Perez v. New York City Housing AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Mohamed v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Dawson v.CafieroAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.