Court Opinion

ID: 9930962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 21:09:00.791896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:32.053924
License: Public Domain

Gerasimowicz v Aslanis
               2024 NY Slip Op 30384(U)
                    February 1, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 654322/2013
                  Judge: Andrea Masley
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                         INDEX NO. 654322/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 238                                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2024

            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
            COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 48
            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

             WALTER V GERASIMOWICZ,                                                                  INDEX NO.         654322/2013

                                                          Plaintiff,
                                                                                                     MOTION DATE            N/A
                                                - V -
                                                                                                     MOTION SEQ. NO.        008
             PANTELIS ASLANIS, GEORGIA PANOS ASLANIS,
             PANAYIOTTA DOUMAZIOS, RITA GIAMPILIS, SPIRO
             KITOVAS, ANDREAS SAVVIDES, GEORGE NIKOLOS,                                               DECISION+ ORDER ON
             GEORGE DELIS, GEORGE RODAS, CONSTANTINE                                                        MOTION
             MEGARIS, AB CAPITAL CORP., ASTORIA FEDERAL
             SAVINGS BANK, DA CONTRACTING, TRIDENT
             CONSTRUCTION CORP., TPG CONTRACTING CORP.,
             TPG ELECTRIC CORP., FIRST CENTRAL ELECTRIC
             CO. INC., THE SITRIX FUND, RODEL ELECTRICAL
             CONTRACTORS, INC., BARE CONTRACTING, INC., and
             MEGARIS ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING CORP.

                                                          Defendants.
            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

            HON. ANDREA MASLEY:

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 008) 212,213,214,215,
            216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,234
            were read on this motion to/for                                                         PRECLUDE

            Upon the foregoing documents, it is

                      For the reasons stated on the record on January 23, 2024, defendants' motion

            sequence number 008 is granted.

                      CPLR 3101 (a) provides "there shall be full disclosure of all evidence material and

            necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action." "This statute embodies the policy

            determination that liberal discovery encourages fair and effective resolution of disputes

            on the merits, minimizing the possibility for ambush and unfair surprise." ( Spectrum

            Sys. Intern. Corp. v Chem. Bank, 78 NY2d 371, 376 [1991] [citation omitted].) The

            Commercial Division Rules and Part 48's procedures implement this philosophy. (22

             654322/2013 GERASIMOWICZ, WALTER V vs. ASLANIS, PANTELIS                                                    Page 1 of4
             Motion No. 008

[* 1]                                                                       1 of 4
                                                                                             INDEX NO. 654322/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 238                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2024

            NYCRR § 202.37 [Scheduling Witnesses]; Commercial Division Rule 32; Part 48 Trial

            Procedures Rule 3.)

                   This matter is going to trial with a jury from June 17 to 28, 2024.

                   Plaintiff is barred from calling seven witnesses -- defendants' employees or

            former employees (NYSCEF 234, Newman aff ,i15) - because he failed to disclose the

            names of those witnesses during discovery in this 2013 case when he was specifically

            and repeatedly asked to identify witnesses. (NYSCEF 66, December 19, 2018 Notice

            for Discovery and Inspection ,I61; see also NYSCEF 67, December 19, 2018

            Interrogatories.) Plaintiff's invitation to defendants to take the depositions of the seven

            undisclosed witnesses is rejected as the court will not reward plaintiff's serial failure to

            comply with discovery orders. (NYSCEF 58, Supplemental Decision and Order [mot.

            seq. 002] [granting counsel's request to be relieved as counsel to plaintiff and counsel

            directed to turnover box of documents to plaintiffj; NYSCEF 59, August 14, 2018 2 PC

            [demands to be served by October 9, 2018 and responses by December 4, 2018;

            depositions by February 28, 2019; plaintiff referred to City Bar Legal Referral Service to

            engage an attorney]; 3 NYSCEF 74, March 7, 2019 4 Order [directing plaintiff to file

            motion for order directing prior counsel to turn over 26 boxes of documents and

            directing plaintiff to respond to defendants' demands]; NYSCEF 75, June 5, 2019 5

            1 "Identify all individuals or witnesses whom you believe have personal knowledge of the

            actions, events and circumstances described in the Complaint, and provide their full
            name, address and telephone numbers, along with a summary of what facts and
            knowledge you believe they have."
            2
              August 14, 2018 preliminary conference held.
            3
              November 30, 2018 conference held.
            4
              March 7, 2019 conference held.
            5
              June 5, 2019 conference held.
             654322/2013 GERASIMOWICZ, WALTER V vs. ASLANIS, PANTELIS                        Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 008

[* 2]                                                     2 of 4
                                                                                             INDEX NO. 654322/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 238                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2024

            Order [plaintiff failed to comply with March 7, 2019 order]; NYSCEF 77, August 13,

            2019 6 Order [case dismissed unless plaintiff appears for deposition]; 7 NYSCEF 78,

            October 7, 2019 8 Order [plaintiff failed to comply with court order and failed to appear

            for conference; defendants directed to move for dismissal]; NYSCEF 146, October 29,

            2020 Decision and Order [mot seq no 005] [denying defendants' motion to dismiss for

            failure to comply with discovery as long as plaintiff complies with the schedule in the

            order]; NYSCEF 151, November 12, 2020 Order [explaining why plaintiff waived his

            right to discovery]; 9 NYSCEF 193, July 26, 2021 Decision and Order [mot seq no 006]

            [denial of sanctions; new discovery set with note of issue deadline]; NYSCEF 197,

            August 10, 2022 Order [all depositions not completed are waived and directing plaintiff

            to file the note of issue again].) 10 There must be consequences for such flagrant

            disregard for court orders. Plaintiff's excuse that he just learned of these witnesses

            while he was preparing for trial is concerning to the court since plaintiff has the burden

            of proof: How did plaintiff intend to prove his case? (Daniels v NY City Tr. Auth., 171

            AD3d 601, 602-603 [1st Dept 2019] [precluding two witnesses proper where defendant

            "fail[ed] to provide a reasonable explanation for its failure to disclose two of the

            witnesses earlier in response to discovery demands".])

            6
              August 13, 2019 conference held where plaintiff's new counsel appeared.
            7 On September 1, 2019, plaintiff served partial responses. (NYSCEF 213, Robert L.
            Camaj, Esq., attorney for Delis and Radel defendants.)
            8
              October 8, 2019 conference held. No appearance by plaintiff or his attorney.
            9
              Plaintiff's counsel served a Jackson affidavit dated November 16, 2020. (NYSCEF
            150.) March 15, 2021 conference held.
            1
                °
               Conferences were also held on August 15, 2022, May 4, 2023 and June 6, 2023.
                654322/2013 GERASIMOWICZ, WALTER V vs. ASLANIS, PANTELIS                     Page 3 of 4
                Motion No. 008

[* 3]                                                        3 of 4
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 654322/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 238                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2024

                    On August 15, 2022, plaintiff filed a note of issue and certificate of readiness

            even though his deposition was not complete; two defendants were scheduled to take

            his deposition, but that never occurred. (NYSCEF 198, Note of Issue.) Accordingly,

            they have until February 29, 2024 to complete plaintiff's deposition without repeating

            any questions already asked.

                    Plaintiff objects to defendants' motion because the CPLR does not require him to

            disclose witnesses. The parties were required by Part 48 Trial Procedure 3A11 to

            disclose their witnesses at the court's trial scheduling conference on June 6, 2023.

            (See also 22 NYCRR § 202.37 [Scheduling Witnesses]; Commercial Division Rule 32.)

                    At argument on this motion, the court directed defendants to comply with Rule 3A

            which they did. (NYSCEF 235, 236, and 237.)

                    Accordingly, it is

                    ORDERED that defendants' motion is granted.

                     2/1/2024
                      DATE                                                      ANDREA MASLEY, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                  NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED         □ DENIED       GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                   SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN     FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE

            11 "The parties shall send a schedule of witnesses, identifying all witnesses, their
            addresses, how long each witness is projected to testify, on direct, cross-examination,
            and re-direct, to the court pursuant to Part Procedure 2 (A), 24 hours prior to the Trial
            Scheduling Conference, otherwise the Trial Scheduling Conference will be cancelled."
             654322/2013 GERASIMOWICZ, WALTER V vs. ASLANIS, PANTELIS                             Page4 of 4
             Motion No. 008

[* 4]                                                      4 of 4