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

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 513 (Kopec v. City of New York) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 513, 669 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kopec-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack