Abreu v. Deb-bie Realty Associates, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abreu v. Deb-bie Realty Associates, LLC

44 A.D.3d 415, 843 N.Y.S.2d 257

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

DecidedOctober 11, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.3d 415 (Abreu v. Deb-bie Realty Associates, LLC) 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

Abreu v. Deb-bie Realty Associates, LLC, 44 A.D.3d 415, 843 N.Y.S.2d 257 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered January 25, 2007, which, in an action for lead paint injuries against the owner of premises in which plaintiff resided, and a third-party action against a school at[416]*416tended by plaintiff, granted the school’s motion for a protective order quashing subpoenas and vacating deposition notices served by the owner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record does not show a “substantial likelihood” that the three additional witnesses the owner wants to depose, plaintiffs teacher and two assistant teachers, observed plaintiff ingesting paint chips or otherwise possess material and necessary information in addition to that already given by the school’s principal, maintenance supervisor and another assistant teacher (see Hayden v City of New York, 26 AD3d 262 [2006]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Buckley and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered January 25, 2007, which, in an action for lead paint injuries against the owner of premises in which plaintiff resided, and a third-party action against a school at[416]*416tended by plaintiff, granted the school’s motion for a protective order quashing subpoenas and vacating deposition notices served by the owner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record does not show a “substantial likelihood” that the three additional witnesses the owner wants to depose, plaintiffs teacher and two assistant teachers, observed plaintiff ingesting paint chips or otherwise possess material and necessary information in addition to that already given by the school’s principal, maintenance supervisor and another assistant teacher (see Hayden v City of New York, 26 AD3d 262 [2006]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Buckley and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 415, 843 N.Y.S.2d 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abreu-v-deb-bie-realty-associates-llc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack