Frates v. Odestash Taxi, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frates v. Odestash Taxi, Inc.

199 A.D.2d 464, 608 N.Y.S.2d 104

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 464 (Frates v. Odestash Taxi, Inc.) 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

Frates v. Odestash Taxi, Inc., 199 A.D.2d 464, 608 N.Y.S.2d 104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for personal injuries, the defendant Odestash Taxi, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated September 23, 1991, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3103, inter alia, to preclude the plaintiffs from deposing various nonparty witnesses in California.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for a protective order (see, DeAddio v Putnam Hosp. Ctr., 196 AD2d 804). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for personal injuries, the defendant Odestash Taxi, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated September 23, 1991, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3103, inter alia, to preclude the plaintiffs from deposing various nonparty witnesses in California.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for a protective order (see, DeAddio v Putnam Hosp. Ctr., 196 AD2d 804). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 464, 608 N.Y.S.2d 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frates-v-odestash-taxi-inc-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack