Cupo v. Zola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cupo v. Zola

45 A.D.3d 723, 844 N.Y.S.2d 892

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.3d 723 (Cupo v. Zola) 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

Cupo v. Zola, 45 A.D.3d 723, 844 N.Y.S.2d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for assault and battery, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Bunyan, J.), dated March 28, 2007, as granted the plaintiffs cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a) for a protective order prohibiting them from videotaping the plaintiffs deposition.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the motion is denied.

Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a) for a protective order prohibiting the defendants from videotaping her deposition. Crane, J.P., Ritter, Fisher, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for assault and battery, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Bunyan, J.), dated March 28, 2007, as granted the plaintiffs cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a) for a protective order prohibiting them from videotaping the plaintiffs deposition.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the motion is denied.

Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a) for a protective order prohibiting the defendants from videotaping her deposition. Crane, J.P., Ritter, Fisher, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 723, 844 N.Y.S.2d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cupo-v-zola-nyappdiv-2007.