Dixon v. City of Yonkers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dixon v. City of Yonkers

16 A.D.3d 542, 792 N.Y.S.2d 514, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3043

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 542 (Dixon v. City of Yonkers) 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

Dixon v. City of Yonkers, 16 A.D.3d 542, 792 N.Y.S.2d 514, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3043 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered March 24, 2004, which denied their motion to quash a subpoena served upon the nonparty witness, Charles Peter.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

When the plaintiff served a subpoena upon Charles Peter, a botanist, directing him to appear for a deposition, the defendants had not yet identified Dr. Peter as their expert witness pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i). Where, as here, the complaint alleges that the decedent’s death was caused by a falling tree, which was removed from the accident scene within 48 hours, special circumstances exist to permit the plaintiff to depose Dr. Peter, including that Dr. Peter examined the tree and surrounding vegetation before key evidence was rendered unavailable to the plaintiff (see Kaufman v Lund Fire Prods. Co., Inc., 8 AD3d 242, 243-244 [2004]; see also Columbia Telecom. Group v General Acc. Ins. Co. of Am., 275 AD2d 340 [2000]; Vogel v Benwil Indus., 267 AD2d 230 [1999]; 232 Broadway Corp. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 171 AD2d 861 [1991]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion to quash the subpoena. H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, 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 wrongful death, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered March 24, 2004, which denied their motion to quash a subpoena served upon the nonparty witness, Charles Peter.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

When the plaintiff served a subpoena upon Charles Peter, a botanist, directing him to appear for a deposition, the defendants had not yet identified Dr. Peter as their expert witness pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i). Where, as here, the complaint alleges that the decedent’s death was caused by a falling tree, which was removed from the accident scene within 48 hours, special circumstances exist to permit the plaintiff to depose Dr. Peter, including that Dr. Peter examined the tree and surrounding vegetation before key evidence was rendered unavailable to the plaintiff (see Kaufman v Lund Fire Prods. Co., Inc., 8 AD3d 242, 243-244 [2004]; see also Columbia Telecom. Group v General Acc. Ins. Co. of Am., 275 AD2d 340 [2000]; Vogel v Benwil Indus., 267 AD2d 230 [1999]; 232 Broadway Corp. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 171 AD2d 861 [1991]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion to quash the subpoena. H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 542, 792 N.Y.S.2d 514, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixon-v-city-of-yonkers-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack