Caridi v. Durst
Opinion of the Court
We find no abuse of discretion in the motion court’s striking of defendant-appellant’s answer for failure to produce a knowledgeable witness since prior orders established this obligation and provided for dismissal if the witness was not produced by a certain date. Finally, inasmuch as defendant did not request a physical examination of plaintiff at the time set by the court in its prior orders, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny defendant’s request to strike the note of issue and to conduct this physical examination, as well as further discovery concerning matters which had already been disclosed (see, Price v Bloomingdale’s, 166 AD2d 151). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.