Filpo v. Linemaster Switch Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Filpo v. Linemaster Switch Corp.

244 A.D.2d 454, 664 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11615

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 17, 1997·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated November 15, 1996, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the third-party defendant to produce additional witnesses for deposition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In order to show that additional depositions are necessary, the moving party must demonstrate that (1) the representative already deposed had insufficient knowledge or otherwise provided inadequate information, and (2) there is a substantial, likelihood that the person or persons sought for depositions can supply information that is material and necessary to the prosecution of the case (see, Uvaydova v New York Tel. Co., 226 AD2d 626; Carter v New York City Bd. of Educ., 225 AD2d 512; Zollner v City of New York, 204 AD2d 626). Since the third-party plaintiff failed to establish these elements, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 defendant third-party plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated November 15, 1996, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the third-party defendant to produce additional witnesses for deposition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In order to show that additional depositions are necessary, the moving party must demonstrate that (1) the representative already deposed had insufficient knowledge or otherwise provided inadequate information, and (2) there is a substantial, likelihood that the person or persons sought for depositions can supply information that is material and necessary to the prosecution of the case (see, Uvaydova v New York Tel. Co., 226 AD2d 626; Carter v New York City Bd. of Educ., 225 AD2d 512; Zollner v City of New York, 204 AD2d 626). Since the third-party plaintiff failed to establish these elements, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Filpo v. Linemaster Switch Corp., 244 A.D.2d 454, 664 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

244 A.D.2d 454 (Filpo v. Linemaster Switch Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related