Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

RANDALL D. DAILEY, SR. AND CONNIE R. DAILEY, Respondents, v. PATRICIA KEITH AND TIMOTHY KEITH, Appellants.

MEMORANDUM:

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. In exercising their discretion, the courts below did not err as a matter of law in refusing to allow the introduction of defendant's deposition testimony at trial as evidence-in-chief. By voluntarily leaving the state and refusing to return for trial, defendant procured her own absence and, therefore, failed to satisfy CPLR 3117 (a)(3)(ii) (see United Bank v. Cambridge Sporting Goods Corp., 41 N.Y.2d 254, 264-265). Thus, the deposition testimony was not admissible as of right.

Defendants' remaining contentions are either unpreserved or lacking in merit.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

DAILEY v. KEITH
(Jan 12, 2004)