In Saldivar v. I.J. White Corporation, 46 AD3d 660 [2007] the plaintiff notified the defendant of his expert through the service of an expert's affidavit in opposition to a motion far summary judgment. At trial the defendant moved to preclude the expert on the ground that a CPLR 3101(d) notice had not been served until trial. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to the extent of limiting the expert's, testimony to the matters stated in the affidavit. The Appellate Division reversed and permitted the expert to testify without limitation stating "CPLR 3101(d)(1)(1) does require a party to respond to a demand for expert witness information at any specific time nor does not that a party be precluded from proferring expert testimony merely because of noncompliance with the statue, unless there is evidence of intentional or willful failure to disclose and a showing of prejudice by the apposing party ". The court found that the allegations in plaintiff's bill of particulars together with the experts affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment foreclosed any claim of prejudice by the defendant at trial.