Kopec v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kopec v. City of New York

248 A.D.2d 513, 669 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2587

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 16, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated November 19, 1996, as denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to compel the respondent to produce two of its employees for depositions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that depositions of the two proposed witnesses were material and necessary to the prosecution of the action (see, CPLR 3101; Allen v CrowellCollier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to compel the respondent to produce those two witnesses.

O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated November 19, 1996, as denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to compel the respondent to produce two of its employees for depositions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that depositions of the two proposed witnesses were material and necessary to the prosecution of the action (see, CPLR 3101; Allen v CrowellCollier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to compel the respondent to produce those two witnesses.

O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Kopec v. City of New York, 248 A.D.2d 513, 669 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

248 A.D.2d 513 (Kopec v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related