| Inchauspe v Take One LLC |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 03082 [138 AD3d 575] |
| April 21, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| Gabriel Inchauspe et al., Respondents, v Take One LLC, Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
Rosenberg Feldman Smith, LLP, New York (Michael H. Smith of counsel), for appellant.
Law Offices of Ronald Hollander, New York (Ronald Hollander of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered November 21, 2014, which denied defendant Take One LLC's motion to preclude plaintiffs from offering into evidence at trial any expert report or expert testimony, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion to
preclude, since defendant did not show that plaintiffs' delay in disclosing their expert and
the expert's appraisal reports was willful or prejudicial (see Martin v Triborough Bridge
& Tunnel Auth., 73 AD3d 481, 482 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 15
NY3d 713 [2010]; Gallo v Linkow, 255 AD2d 113, 117 [1st Dept 1998]).
Plaintiffs explained that while they had obtained three expert appraisal reports, the last
one completed in December 2013, they had considered obtaining appraisals for
additional dates, which they ultimately decided not to do. Their intent was to submit one
comprehensive expert appraisal report upon its completion. Defendant makes no claim of
prejudice, nor do we perceive any, given that disclosure was made more than
1
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Gische and Kahn, JJ.