Case ID: ny3d_1/html/0586-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[806 NE2d 130, 774 NYS2d 105]
    Randall D. Dailey, Sr., et al., Respondents, v Patricia Keith et al., Appellants.
    Decided January 12, 2004
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Davidson & O’Mara, EC., Elmira (Ransom E Reynolds, Jr., and Bryan J. Maggs of counsel), for appellants.
    
      Paul A. Argentieri, Hornell, for respondents.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. In exercising their discretion, the courts below did not err as a matter of law in refusing to allow the introduction of defendant’s deposition testimony at trial as evidence-in-chief. By voluntarily leaving the state and refusing to return for trial, defendant procured her own absence and, therefore, failed to satisfy CPLR 3117 (a) (3) (ii) (see United Bank v Cambridge Sporting Goods Corp., 41 NY2d 254, 264-265 [1976]). Thus, the deposition testimony was not admissible as of right.

Defendants’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved or lacking in merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graefeo and Read concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), orders affirmed, etc.