Opinion
Appeal No. 15479 Index No. 14095/04Case No. 2021-00848
03-08-2022
Khris Singh, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Albert Genovese et al., Defendants-Respondents. Appeal No. 15479 Case No. 2021-00848
The Flomenhaft Law Firm, PLLC, New York (Benedene Cannata of counsel), for appellant. Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach, LLP, New York (Daniel S. Ratner of counsel), for respondents.
The Flomenhaft Law Firm, PLLC, New York (Benedene Cannata of counsel), for appellant.
Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach, LLP, New York (Daniel S. Ratner of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Webber, Kern, Friedman, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George J. Silver, J.), entered on or about September 3, 2020, which denied plaintiff's motion to vacate prior discovery orders and preclude defendants' expert from testifying, and for a protective order precluding duplicative discovery demands, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff failed to move to vacate the court's prior discovery orders within a reasonable time (CPLR 5015; see Nash v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 22 N.Y.3d 220, 225 [2013]), and he has not explained his delay in moving (see Cohn v Nationstar Mtge. LLC, 187 A.D.3d 499, 500 [1st Dept 2020]). In any event, there was no basis under CPLR 5015 to vacate the orders, and indeed, plaintiff's motion failed to specify any grounds for relief under the statute (see Tower Ins. Co. N.Y. v NHT Owners LLC, 115 A.D.3d 551, 551 [1st Dept 2014]). Plaintiff was provided sufficient notice that sanctions could result from his noncompliance, and the court providently exercised its discretion in imposing limited preclusion (see Rosengarten v Born, 161 A.D.3d 515, 515 [1st Dept 2018]).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments, including the argument that he complied with the court's prior discovery orders, and find them unavailing.