Bovsun v. Sanperi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bovsun v. Sanperi

112 A.D.2d 125, 491 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56408

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 A.D.2d 125 (Bovsun v. Sanperi) 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

Bovsun v. Sanperi, 112 A.D.2d 125, 491 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated July 10, 1984, which denied their motions for (1) an order compelling plaintiffs to submit to further examinations before trial, and (2) an order vacating plaintiffs’ notice to restore the case to the Trial Calendar.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Defendants have wholly failed to show that any "unusual and unanticipated conditions” have developed so as to justify further depositions of the plaintiffs (22 NYCRR 675.7; see, Holbin v Port Auth., 88 AD2d 990; Kirk v Blum, 79 AD2d 700). The record clearly indicates that the discovery which has already been conducted has given defendants a full and fair opportunity to gather information on issues such as the "zone of danger” and the cause and extent of the psychic injuries sustained by plaintiffs. Indeed, the fact that defendants had plaintiffs undergo psychiatric examinations in 1978 belies their contention that they lack information necessary to defend the instant claims. As such, we find that Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motions to conduct further discovery and to keep the case off the Trial Calendar. Bracken, J. P., O’Connor, Rubin and Kunzeman, 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 personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated July 10, 1984, which denied their motions for (1) an order compelling plaintiffs to submit to further examinations before trial, and (2) an order vacating plaintiffs’ notice to restore the case to the Trial Calendar.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Defendants have wholly failed to show that any "unusual and unanticipated conditions” have developed so as to justify further depositions of the plaintiffs (22 NYCRR 675.7; see, Holbin v Port Auth., 88 AD2d 990; Kirk v Blum, 79 AD2d 700). The record clearly indicates that the discovery which has already been conducted has given defendants a full and fair opportunity to gather information on issues such as the "zone of danger” and the cause and extent of the psychic injuries sustained by plaintiffs. Indeed, the fact that defendants had plaintiffs undergo psychiatric examinations in 1978 belies their contention that they lack information necessary to defend the instant claims. As such, we find that Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motions to conduct further discovery and to keep the case off the Trial Calendar. Bracken, J. P., O’Connor, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 125, 491 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bovsun-v-sanperi-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack