Boylin v. Eagle Telephonics

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boylin v. Eagle Telephonics

130 A.D.2d 538, 515 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46542

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

DecidedMay 11, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 130 A.D.2d 538 (Boylin v. Eagle Telephonics) 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

Boylin v. Eagle Telephonics, 130 A.D.2d 538, 515 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of employment contracts, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated September 26, 1986, which denied their motion for a protective order requiring the defendant to use the disclosure devices of written questions or interrogatories in lieu of depositions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs; the depositions shall proceed at a time and place to be fixed by written notice of not less than 30 days, to be given by the defendant, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree.

A motion for a protective order (CPLR 3101 [a]) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court (Matter of U. S. Pioneer Elecs. Corp. [Nikko Elec. Corp.], 47 NY2d 914) and, on this record, we find no basis for disturbing the trial court’s denial of the motion. The nonresident plaintiffs chose to invoke the jurisdiction of the New York courts (Spatz v Wide World Travel Serv., 70 AD2d 835), and their motion for a protective order was supported solely by an attorney’s affirmation containing only conclusory allegations of hardship (Carberry v Bonilla, 65 AD2d 613; see also, Santamaria v Walt Disney World, 51 AD2d 959; Abrams v Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. Co., 37 AD2d 833, 834). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Spatt, 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 employment contracts, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated September 26, 1986, which denied their motion for a protective order requiring the defendant to use the disclosure devices of written questions or interrogatories in lieu of depositions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs; the depositions shall proceed at a time and place to be fixed by written notice of not less than 30 days, to be given by the defendant, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree.

A motion for a protective order (CPLR 3101 [a]) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court (Matter of U. S. Pioneer Elecs. Corp. [Nikko Elec. Corp.], 47 NY2d 914) and, on this record, we find no basis for disturbing the trial court’s denial of the motion. The nonresident plaintiffs chose to invoke the jurisdiction of the New York courts (Spatz v Wide World Travel Serv., 70 AD2d 835), and their motion for a protective order was supported solely by an attorney’s affirmation containing only conclusory allegations of hardship (Carberry v Bonilla, 65 AD2d 613; see also, Santamaria v Walt Disney World, 51 AD2d 959; Abrams v Vaughan & Bushnell Mfg. Co., 37 AD2d 833, 834). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.2d 538, 515 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boylin-v-eagle-telephonics-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack