Habib v. Best Yet Market of Hicksville, Inc.

101 A.D.3d 1083, 955 N.Y.2d 892

This text of 101 A.D.3d 1083 (Habib v. Best Yet Market of Hicksville, 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
Habib v. Best Yet Market of Hicksville, Inc., 101 A.D.3d 1083, 955 N.Y.2d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to extend the time within which to make a posttrial motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404 (see CPLR 4405; Brzozowy v ELRAC, Inc., 39 AD3d 451 [2007]). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to compel the deposition of a nonparty witness, the Justice who presided over the trial in this case. Even if the plaintiffs made a sufficient showing as to relevancy, they did not demonstrate that the information they sought could not be obtained from other sources (see Cotton v Cotton, 91 AD3d 697, 699 [2012]; Kooper v Kooper 74 AD3d 6 [2010]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Brzozowy v. ELRAC, Inc.
39 A.D.3d 451 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Kooper v. Kooper
74 A.D.3d 6 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Cotton v. Cotton
91 A.D.3d 697 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
101 A.D.3d 1083, 955 N.Y.2d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/habib-v-best-yet-market-of-hicksville-inc-nyappdiv-2012.