In a significant ruling, the New York Supreme Court, Richmond County, decided to exclude a witness from testifying in the case of Designer Stone Source, Inc. v. Dograa. This decision impacts the upcoming trial scheduled for March 16, 2026, and could influence how similar cases are handled in the future.
The ruling came after Designer Stone Source, Inc. (the Plaintiff) sought to preclude Hilary Doloh from testifying at trial. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to discovery rules and the implications of introducing new witnesses late in the legal process.
The case involves Designer Stone Source, Inc., a company that provides stone products, and Jaswndar Dograa, along with two other defendants: KRISH INTERNATIONAL GEMS, CORP., and SOURCE INTERNATIONAL, LLC. The dispute revolves around claims made by the Plaintiff against the Defendants, which led to a series of pre-trial motions and hearings.
The legal proceedings began when the Plaintiff filed a motion in limine on February 12, 2026, requesting the court to prevent Hilary Doloh from testifying. The Plaintiff argued that Doloh was not identified as a witness during earlier discovery phases, which concluded before the case was marked ready for trial. The Defendants had initially provided a list of witnesses but did not include Doloh until February 5, 2026, just weeks before the trial.
This case reached the New York Supreme Court after various motions and a pre-trial conference where the court confirmed that discovery had closed. The Plaintiff's concerns were based on the timeline of witness disclosure and the potential disruption of the trial process.
Judge Ronald Castorina Jr. presided over the case and ultimately ruled in favor of the Plaintiff. The court stated, "Permitting the testimony would necessitate additional proceedings after certification and would undermine the orderly administration of the Court's trial calendar." This highlights the court's commitment to maintaining an efficient legal process.
The court's ruling also addressed the Defendants' argument that they were allowed to supplement their witness list under CPLR § 3101(h), which mandates a continuing obligation to disclose new information. However, the court found that once a Note of Issue is filed, discovery can only be reopened with the court's permission and under specific circumstances.
As a result, the court granted the Plaintiff's motion to preclude Doloh from testifying while denying the request for sanctions against the Defendants. The ruling reinforces the principle that all parties must adhere to established timelines and procedures during litigation.
This decision is significant for several reasons. It underscores the necessity for parties in legal disputes to comply with discovery rules and to disclose all potential witnesses in a timely manner. The ruling serves as a reminder that introducing new evidence or witnesses close to trial can lead to exclusion, which could impact the outcome of the case.
Going forward, this ruling may set a precedent for similar cases where late disclosures are contested. It emphasizes the importance of preparing thoroughly during the discovery phase to avoid complications later in the trial process.
As for what’s next, the trial is set to proceed on March 16, 2026, as previously scheduled. The Defendants have the option to appeal the ruling regarding the exclusion of Doloh, but details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case could influence how future cases are managed, especially concerning witness disclosures and trial readiness.