Bentze v. Island Trees Union Free School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bentze v. Island Trees Union Free School District

92 A.D.3d 709, 938 N.Y.2d 464

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 92 A.D.3d 709 (Bentze v. Island Trees Union Free School District) 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

Bentze v. Island Trees Union Free School District, 92 A.D.3d 709, 938 N.Y.2d 464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of their motion which was to compel the defendants to produce an additional witness for a deposition. The plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating that the defendants’ witnesses who had already been deposed had insufficient knowledge, or were otherwise inadequate, and that there was a substantial likelihood that the person sought by the plaintiffs for an additional deposition possessed information which was material and necessary to the prosecution of the action (see Conte v County of Nassau, 87 AD3d 559, 560 [2011]; Thristino v County of Suffolk, 78 AD3d 927 [2010]; Douglas v New York City Tr. Auth., 48 AD3d 615, 616 [2008]; Sladowski-Casolaro v World Championship Wrestling, Inc., 47 AD3d 803, 803-804 [2008]). Rivera, J.P., Eng, Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of their motion which was to compel the defendants to produce an additional witness for a deposition. The plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating that the defendants’ witnesses who had already been deposed had insufficient knowledge, or were otherwise inadequate, and that there was a substantial likelihood that the person sought by the plaintiffs for an additional deposition possessed information which was material and necessary to the prosecution of the action (see Conte v County of Nassau, 87 AD3d 559, 560 [2011]; Thristino v County of Suffolk, 78 AD3d 927 [2010]; Douglas v New York City Tr. Auth., 48 AD3d 615, 616 [2008]; Sladowski-Casolaro v World Championship Wrestling, Inc., 47 AD3d 803, 803-804 [2008]). Rivera, J.P., Eng, Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 709, 938 N.Y.2d 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bentze-v-island-trees-union-free-school-district-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack