Callaghan v Curtis

Callaghan v Curtis 2011 NY Slip Op 01786 Decided on March 8, 2011 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on March 8, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
L. PRISCILLA HALL
SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
2010-06194
(Index No. 20136/04)

[*1]Janet Callaghan, appellant,

v

W. Robert Curtis, etc., et al., respondents.




Jeffrey Levitt, Amityville, N.Y., for appellant.
Curtis & Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (W. Robert Curtis,
respondent pro se of counsel),
respondent pro se.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scheinkman, J.), entered June 8, 2010, which, upon the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike her reply to their counterclaims, inter alia, precluded her from offering any documents at trial.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

"[A] trial court is given broad discretion to oversee the discovery process" (Castillo v Henry Schein, Inc., 259 AD2d 651, 652). Here, the plaintiff clearly violated a prior order of the Supreme Court by failing to bring certain documents to her deposition. Her attorney also made extensive "speaking objections" during the deposition, and the plaintiff herself repeatedly refused to answer clear questions. We conclude that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, upon the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike her reply to their counterclaims, by, inter alia, precluding the plaintiff from offering any documents at trial (see e.g. O'Neill v Ho, 28 AD3d 626, 627).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, HALL and ROMAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court