Candray v. Eicher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Candray v. Eicher

19 A.D.3d 352, 795 N.Y.S.2d 908

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

DecidedJune 6, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 352 (Candray v. Eicher) 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

Candray v. Eicher, 19 A.D.3d 352, 795 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated October 8, 2004, which denied his mo- tion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21 (d) for leave to depose a nonparty witness.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for leave to depose a nonparty witness, made after the filing of the note of issue and certificate of readiness. The plaintiff failed to offer any evidence of unusual or unanticipated circumstances subsequent to the filing such as would require additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice (see Gigliotti v Allstate Ins. Co., 258 AD2d AD2d [353]*353559 [1999]; Scocozza v Tolia, 254 AD2d 475 [1998]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Rivera, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated October 8, 2004, which denied his mo- tion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21 (d) for leave to depose a nonparty witness.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for leave to depose a nonparty witness, made after the filing of the note of issue and certificate of readiness. The plaintiff failed to offer any evidence of unusual or unanticipated circumstances subsequent to the filing such as would require additional pretrial proceedings to prevent substantial prejudice (see Gigliotti v Allstate Ins. Co., 258 AD2d AD2d [353]*353559 [1999]; Scocozza v Tolia, 254 AD2d 475 [1998]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 352, 795 N.Y.S.2d 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/candray-v-eicher-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack