A. Fajer Import E Export Ltda v. Schick Technologies, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

A. Fajer Import E Export Ltda v. Schick Technologies, Inc.

39 A.D.3d 778, 832 N.Y.S.2d 814

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 24, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.3d 778 (A. Fajer Import E Export Ltda v. Schick Technologies, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A. Fajer Import E Export Ltda v. Schick Technologies, Inc., 39 A.D.3d 778, 832 N.Y.S.2d 814 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and libel, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated August 8, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CFLR 3103 for a protective order prohibiting the plaintiff from taking certain nonparty depositions and vacating those deposition notices.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“ ‘While CFLR 3101 (a) provides for full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of an action, unlimited disclosure is not required, and supervision of disclosure is generally left to the trial court’s broad discretion’ ” (Smith v Moore, 31 AD3d 628, 628 [2006], quoting Blagrove v Cox, 294 AD2d 526, 526 [2002]). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiffs notices of certain nonparty depositions were untimely.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and libel, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated August 8, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CFLR 3103 for a protective order prohibiting the plaintiff from taking certain nonparty depositions and vacating those deposition notices.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“ ‘While CFLR 3101 (a) provides for full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of an action, unlimited disclosure is not required, and supervision of disclosure is generally left to the trial court’s broad discretion’ ” (Smith v Moore, 31 AD3d 628, 628 [2006], quoting Blagrove v Cox, 294 AD2d 526, 526 [2002]). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiffs notices of certain nonparty depositions were untimely.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 778, 832 N.Y.S.2d 814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-fajer-import-e-export-ltda-v-schick-technologies-inc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack