Giovinazzo v. A & E Stores, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giovinazzo v. A & E Stores, Inc.

222 A.D.2d 1079, 636 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14155

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 1079 (Giovinazzo v. A & E Stores, 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

Giovinazzo v. A & E Stores, Inc., 222 A.D.2d 1079, 636 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14155 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting defendant’s motion for a protective order striking plaintiffs cross notice of examination before trial and in directing that the depositions of defendant’s employees and/or officers take place in the New York City area, where they reside and are employed (see, CPLR 3103 [a]; 3110 [1]). We modify the order, however, by directing that the reasonable expenses of taking those depositions, excluding counsel fees, are to be taxable costs to the prevailing party (see generally, CPLR 8101). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — Discovery.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting defendant’s motion for a protective order striking plaintiffs cross notice of examination before trial and in directing that the depositions of defendant’s employees and/or officers take place in the New York City area, where they reside and are employed (see, CPLR 3103 [a]; 3110 [1]). We modify the order, however, by directing that the reasonable expenses of taking those depositions, excluding counsel fees, are to be taxable costs to the prevailing party (see generally, CPLR 8101). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — Discovery.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 1079, 636 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giovinazzo-v-a-e-stores-inc-nyappdiv-1995.