IN RE FRANCISCO L. CAMARA, pet-res, v. SKANSKA, INC. Respondents-ap

4063N. IN RE FRANCISCO L. CAMARA, pet-res, v. SKANSKA, INC. Respondents-ap — Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., New York (Simon Lee of counsel), for ap — Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, P.C., New York (Christina Ctorides of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered February 24, 2016, which, to the extent appealable, granted petitioner's application for pre-action disclosure pursuant to CPLR 31021047 23 4, unanimously modified, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, to delete paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order, which provide for a deposition, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

4063N. IN RE FRANCISCO L. CAMARA, pet-res, v. SKANSKA, INC. Respondents-ap — Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., New York (Simon Lee of counsel), for ap — Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, P.C., New York (Christina Ctorides of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered February 24, 2016, which, to the extent appealable, granted petitioner’s application for pre-action disclosure pursuant to CPLR 31021047 23 4, unanimously modified, on the facts and as a matter of discretion, to delete paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order, which provide for a deposition, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Although respondents have already largely complied with petitioner’s preaction disclosure requests, respondents still have an ongoing obligation to “amend or supplement” their responses (CPLR 3101[h]), and the order imposes additional outstanding disclosure obligations. Accordingly, the order has potential continuing practical consequences to respondents and their appeal is not moot (see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v. Pataki, 100 NY2d 801, 811-812 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1017 [2003]; Saratoga Harness Racing v. Roemer, 290 AD2d 928, 928 n [3d Dept 2002]).

IN RE FRANCISCO L. CAMARA, pet-res, v. SKANSKA, INC. Respondents-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal