You are here: / / Expert’s Affidavit Should Have Been Considered in Summary Judgment Motion E...
,

Expert’s Affidavit Should Have Been Considered in Summary Judgment Motion Even though Expert Had Not Been Disclosed​

In a slip and fall case, the defendant moved for summary judgment.  Because the plaintiff’s expert had not been previously disclosed, Supreme Court refused to consider the expert’s affidavit.  In reversing, the Second Department wrote:

 “[A] party’s failure to disclose its experts pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) prior to the filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness does not divest a court of the discretion to consider an affirmation or affidavit submitted by that party’s experts in the context of a timely motion for summary judgment” …. Under the circumstances of this case, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to refuse to consider the affidavit of the plaintiff’s expert submitted in opposition to the respondents’ motion … . Salcedo v Weng Qu Ju, 2013 NY Slip Op 03656, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

 

You might also like
Hospital Not Necessary Party in Malpractice Action Where Liability Vicarious
Public Interest Privilege (Protecting Government Documents from Disclosure) Explained
“Service Charge” Could Be “Gratuity” to Which Employer Not Entitled
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT FINDING THE APPELLANT IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING MADE A TERRORISTIC THREAT IN VIOLATION OF PENAL LAW 490.20; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT TO INTIMIDATE THE CIVILIAN POPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED CLAIMANT’S INJURY, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PROTECT CLAIMANT WHILE IN FOSTER CARE AND THE TIME THE CLAIM AROSE (SECOND DEPT).
THE UNION’S CHALLENGE TO THE DEDUCTION OF THE COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE FROM A VILLAGE POLICE OFFICER’S PAYCHECK WAS A BREACH-OF-CONTRACT ACTION FOR WHICH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEGAN RUNNING ANEW FOR EACH PAYCHECK (SECOND DEPT). ​
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE PARKING LOT WAS THE SUBJECT OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE ATHLETIC CLUB, NOT A LEASE, THEREFORE THE OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLICABLE, ALTHOUGH THE LICENSE AGREEMENT REQUIRED THE ATHLETIC CLUB TO MAINTAIN THE PARKING LOT, THE LICENSE AGREEMENT IMPOSED CERTAIN MAINTENANCE DUTIES ON THE CITY AS WELL, THE CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE 2ND DEPARTMENT REVERSED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE BANK BECAUSE ONE OF TWO BORROWERS WAS NOT NAMED IN THE RPAPL 1306 FILING; THIS RULING MAY NOT HOLD UP BECAUSE, ON MARCH 30, 2021, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD ONLY ONE BORROWER NEED BE NAMED IN THE RPAPL 1306 FILING (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Consolidation and Joint Trial Explained​ Subpoena Can Not Be Used for Discovery Purposes​