AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
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
Attorney(S)
Judges

BARBARA VITELLO, et al., Respondents, v. JAM INSTALLERS, INC., et al., Appellants (and a Third-Party action).

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants forfeited their right to conduct physical examinations of the injured plaintiff and to have the plaintiffs comply with further discovery when they failed to complete the plaintiffs' depositions and submit to their own depositions as scheduled by the court at numerous pretrial conferences over a three-year period ( see, Gigliotti v. Allstate Ins. Co., 258 A.D.2d 559 [2d Dept., Feb. 16, 1999]; Gill v. United Parcel Serv., 249 A.D.2d 265; Kantennan v. Palmiotti, 122 A.D.2d 116; Levine v. McFarland, 98 A.D.2d 795). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants' motion, inter alia, to compel discovery.

MANGANO, P.J., SANTUCCI, KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

VITELLO v. JAM INSTALLERS, INC
(Sep 20, 1999)