The trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in precluding testimony from the witness who identified plaintiff to the police as an individual she had seen fleeing the scene of a crime. Defendants satisfied their discovery obligation by providing the witness's last known address and telephone number during discovery, more than four years before trial. Thus, there could have been no surprise or prejudice warranting the preclusion (see Castracane v Campbell,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
ONILUDE v. CITY OF NEW YORK
309622/09-10540B. 10540A. 10540.
178 A.D.3d 499 (2019)
115 N.Y.S.3d 272
2019 NY Slip Op 08925
Tokunbo Onilude, Respondent, v. City of New York et al., Appellants.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided December 12, 2019.
Decided December 12, 2019.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Zachary W. Carter , Corporation Counsel, New York ( Diana Lawless of counsel), for appellants.
Sivin & Miller, LLP, New York ( Edward Sivin of counsel), for respondent.
Concur—Gische, J.P., Mazzarelli, Gesmer, Moulton, JJ.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
