Upon the foregoing papers, numerous defendants move and cross-move pursuant to New York Practice Civil Laws and Rules (CPLR) Rule 3116(a) to strike the plaintiff's errata sheets that list forty-five (45) corrections to his deposition transcript. For the following reasons, the motions are granted.

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained on January 19, 2014, when the tire of the bicycle he was riding allegedly came into contact with a hole in the roadway on East 70th Street between First and Second Avenues in New York County. A hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law (GML) Section 50-h was held on May 7, 2014 and his examination before trial (EBT) in this action was held on January 8, 2016, with the use of a Spanish translator. By letter dated February 23, 2016, plaintiff submitted errata sheets, signed and acknowledged on February 17, 2016.

Moving defendants assert that the errata sheets must be stricken due to plaintiff's failure to provide any explanations for the changes as required by CPLR Rule 3116(a); the errata sheets are not accompanied by an affidavit from a Spanish translator, or otherwise fail to account for the actual process by which plaintiff acknowledged each errata sheet; and the changes are so substantive in nature that they materially alter his testimony. In opposition, plaintiff submitted two sets of errata sheets, one in Spanish and one in English, each signed and acknowledged by plaintiff on March 30, 2016. The submission is accompanied by an affidavit from Jaime A. Rojas, who certified that he or she is fluent in Spanish and English, and translated the set of errata sheets, allegedly written by plaintiff in Spanish, into English.

It is undisputed that plaintiff's errata sheets, as initially served, are improper under the statute as none of the changes are accompanied by an explanation or a reason for the change. See Schachat v. Bell Atl. Corp., 282 AD2d 329 (1st Dep't 2001); see also Zamir v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 304 AD2d 493 (1st Dep't 2003); Garcia v. Stickel, 37 AD3d 368 (1st Dep't 2007).

As for the second submission, the Court notes that it is technically untimely under CPLR [*2]Rule 3116(a), which states that "[n]o changes to the transcript may be made by the witness more than sixty days after the submission to the witness for examination." Here, the deadline for plaintiff's changes was April 7, 2016,^[FN1] yet the explanations to plaintiff's EBT changes and affidavit of translation were e-filed with his first set of opposition papers on April 12, 2016. Although the Court may extend time under CPLR Section 2004, such relief is appropriate only upon a showing of good cause. Zamir, 304 AD2d at 493. "[C]ourts should be circumspect about extending the 60-day period inasmuch as '[a]n indication from the courts that an extension will be allowed without a strong showing of justification will quickly evolve a dilatory attitude that can undermine the purpose of CPLR 3116 (a)'s time limit altogether.'" Id. at 493 (quoting David D. Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinneys Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, C3116:1). Even though the second submission is untimely by a mere few days, plaintiff failed to give any justification for the delay in providing reasons or explanations for the EBT changes. Therefore, the motions could be granted on this basis alone.^[FN2]

Even if the Court were to consider the untimely errata sheets, the motions are still granted. First, some of the corrections are not accompanied by a reason or explanation for the change; therefore, those should not be permitted, as stated supra. Second, "[a] correction will be rejected where the proffered reason for the change is inadequate." Torres v. Bd. of Educ. of City of NY, 137 AD3d 1256, 1257 (2d Dep't 2016). For example, plaintiff already attempted to correct the March 4th date to February 4th on the record after a lunch break — and the current attempt to now claim that he "misspoke" and change the numerous instances when he said March 4th, prior to the lunch break, to read as if he said February 4th, are suspect at best. See id. (the alleged explanation that the deponent "misspoke" is inadequate). Additionally, any changes sought to make plaintiff's EBT consistent with his GML Section 50-h testimony should also be rejected here. See id.

Further, "[t]he plaintiff's assertion in his opposition papers that the correction[s were] necessitated by confusion in the translation of his testimony by an interpreter is not supported by the record." Marzan v. Persaud, 29 AD3d 652, 653 (2d Dep't 2006). Moving defendants note, and this Court agrees, that any confusion from the translation was cleared on the record — the questions were read back to plaintiff and there is no indication that he did not understand after the interpreter explained what was being asked. Moreover, there is no indication from the record that the adequacy of the interpreter was challenged by plaintiff's counsel. See Rodriguez v. Jones, 227 AD2d 220 (1st Dep't 1996).

Accordingly, the moving defendants' motions and cross-motions to strike the plaintiff's errata sheets are granted. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.