Hakim Consultants Ltd. v. Formosa Ltd.

175 A.D.2d 759
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 22, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 175 A.D.2d 759 (Hakim Consultants Ltd. v. Formosa Ltd.) 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
Hakim Consultants Ltd. v. Formosa Ltd., 175 A.D.2d 759 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinions

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered December 20, 1990, which denied defendants’ motion for a protective order and directed plaintiff’s depositions of defendants to proceed prior to the deposition by defendants of plaintiff, reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion and the defendants’ motion for a protective order granted, without costs.

In this action by a minority shareholder for breach of a shareholders’ agreement, served on or about September 12, 1990, defendants, on or about October 12, 1990, answered and [760]*760noticed the plaintiff for deposition on November 15, 1990. Plaintiff’s principal is a resident of Israel and sought to have the examination take place in mid-December 1990. Plaintiff also noticed the defendants for depositions prior to that of the plaintiff. The motion court denied the defendants’ motion for a protective order and scheduled the depositions, giving plaintiff priority. In the absence of special circumstances, priority of deposition belongs to the defendant if a notice for examination is served with the answer. (CPLR 3106 [a]; Bucci v Lydon, 116 AD2d 520 [1986].) The alleged breach of a shareholder’s fiduciary duty and the fact that plaintiff’s principal is a resident of Israel do not, as plaintiff contends, constitute special circumstances here. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

Related

Serio v. Rhulen
29 A.D.3d 1195 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Schindler v. Niche Media Holdings, LLC
1 Misc. 3d 713 (New York Supreme Court, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
175 A.D.2d 759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hakim-consultants-ltd-v-formosa-ltd-nyappdiv-1991.