Columbia Telecommunications Group, Inc. v. General Accident Insurance Co. of America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Columbia Telecommunications Group, Inc. v. General Accident Insurance Co. of America

275 A.D.2d 340, 712 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8668

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 14, 2000·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), entered December 13, 1999, which denied its motion to strike the notice of deposition of its expert witness and to quash a subpoena directing its expert to be deposed, and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to depose the defendant’s expert witness.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted and the cross motion is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion and in granting the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to depose the defendant’s expert witness. The plaintiff failed to show that the evidence inspected by that witness became unavailable before the plaintiff had the incentive to have its own experts conduct inspections (see, 232 Broadway Corp. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 171 AD2d 861). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, 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 contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), entered December 13, 1999, which denied its motion to strike the notice of deposition of its expert witness and to quash a subpoena directing its expert to be deposed, and granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to depose the defendant’s expert witness.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted and the cross motion is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion and in granting the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to depose the defendant’s expert witness. The plaintiff failed to show that the evidence inspected by that witness became unavailable before the plaintiff had the incentive to have its own experts conduct inspections (see, 232 Broadway Corp. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 171 AD2d 861). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Columbia Telecommunications Group, Inc. v. General Accident Insurance Co. of America, 275 A.D.2d 340, 712 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8668 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

275 A.D.2d 340 (Columbia Telecommunications Group, Inc. v. General Accident Insurance Co. of America) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related