Glasburgh v. Port Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glasburgh v. Port Authority

213 A.D.2d 196, 623 N.Y.S.2d 578

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 196 (Glasburgh v. Port Authority) 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

Glasburgh v. Port Authority, 213 A.D.2d 196, 623 N.Y.S.2d 578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered [197]*197August 2, 1994, which inter alia, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for a protective order against plaintiffs notice to take the deposition of defendant’s employee expert, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Otis Elevator Company’s noticed expert is also its employee and is therefore subject to deposition pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) without restriction as to opinion testimony (McDermott v Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp., 15 NY2d 20; Lingener v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 195 AD2d 838). The special circumstances requirement of CPLR 3101 (d) does not apply to an expert who is an employee of a party (see, Maser v County of Onondaga, 90 AD2d 970, lv dismissed 58 NY2d 1047). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William Davis, J.), entered [197]*197August 2, 1994, which inter alia, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for a protective order against plaintiffs notice to take the deposition of defendant’s employee expert, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Otis Elevator Company’s noticed expert is also its employee and is therefore subject to deposition pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a) without restriction as to opinion testimony (McDermott v Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp., 15 NY2d 20; Lingener v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 195 AD2d 838). The special circumstances requirement of CPLR 3101 (d) does not apply to an expert who is an employee of a party (see, Maser v County of Onondaga, 90 AD2d 970, lv dismissed 58 NY2d 1047). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 196, 623 N.Y.S.2d 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glasburgh-v-port-authority-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack