The motion was based on plaintiff's failure to disclose experts who would testify for him at trial. In opposition, plaintiff supplied an expert designation, which defendant's reply argued was inadequate under CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i). The motion court, noting that plaintiff's designated expert was also his treating physician, held that defendant had sufficient notice of this witness's projected testimony by reason of having been given his report and records. We agree with that...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
