Jeremiah v. Dowe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jeremiah v. Dowe

289 A.D.2d 178, 735 N.Y.S.2d 386, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12737

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 178 (Jeremiah v. Dowe) 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

Jeremiah v. Dowe, 289 A.D.2d 178, 735 N.Y.S.2d 386, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Tingling, J.), entered June 4, 2001, which, upon the hearing of a proposed infant compromise in a personal injury action, directed defendant to appear for a deposition concerning his assets, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We reject defendant’s argument that a deposition concerning a party’s assets is authorized only for purposes of proceedings to enforce a judgment pursuant to CPLR article 52. Conditioning approval of the proposed compromise upon the taking of defendant’s deposition concerning his assets is authorized by CPLR 3101 (a), and was a proper exercise of discretion given the court’s responsibility under CPLR 1207 to approve only a settlement that is in the infant’s best interests (see, Sutherland v City of New York, 107 AD2d 568, affd 66 NY2d 800), the infant’s severe injuries, the low policy limit for which the par[179]*179ties agreed to settle, and plaintiffs’ agreement with the procedure (compare, id.). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Tingling, J.), entered June 4, 2001, which, upon the hearing of a proposed infant compromise in a personal injury action, directed defendant to appear for a deposition concerning his assets, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We reject defendant’s argument that a deposition concerning a party’s assets is authorized only for purposes of proceedings to enforce a judgment pursuant to CPLR article 52. Conditioning approval of the proposed compromise upon the taking of defendant’s deposition concerning his assets is authorized by CPLR 3101 (a), and was a proper exercise of discretion given the court’s responsibility under CPLR 1207 to approve only a settlement that is in the infant’s best interests (see, Sutherland v City of New York, 107 AD2d 568, affd 66 NY2d 800), the infant’s severe injuries, the low policy limit for which the par[179]*179ties agreed to settle, and plaintiffs’ agreement with the procedure (compare, id.). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 178, 735 N.Y.S.2d 386, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeremiah-v-dowe-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack