McKay v. Khabele

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McKay v. Khabele

46 A.D.3d 258, 846 N.Y.S.2d 187

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 258 (McKay v. Khabele) 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

McKay v. Khabele, 46 A.D.3d 258, 846 N.Y.S.2d 187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered October 17, 2006, which, to the extent appealed as limited by the briefs, limited plaintiffs further depositions of defendant Khabele and nonparty Dr. Gloria Huang, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court did not act improvidently in limiting further depositions of Khabele and Huang to questions related to their notes in newly produced documents and refusing to direct them to answer all questions to which objections had been raised at their initial depositions. Plaintiff failed to justify adequately a broader scope of inquiry or to demonstrate that the limitations deprived them of deposition testimony relevant and necessary for preparation for trial (see Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v Occidental Gems, Inc., 41 AD3d 362 [2007]; Smukler v 12 Lofts Realty, 178 AD2d 125 [1991]). Concur— Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Buckley and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered October 17, 2006, which, to the extent appealed as limited by the briefs, limited plaintiffs further depositions of defendant Khabele and nonparty Dr. Gloria Huang, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court did not act improvidently in limiting further depositions of Khabele and Huang to questions related to their notes in newly produced documents and refusing to direct them to answer all questions to which objections had been raised at their initial depositions. Plaintiff failed to justify adequately a broader scope of inquiry or to demonstrate that the limitations deprived them of deposition testimony relevant and necessary for preparation for trial (see Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v Occidental Gems, Inc., 41 AD3d 362 [2007]; Smukler v 12 Lofts Realty, 178 AD2d 125 [1991]). Concur— Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Buckley and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 258, 846 N.Y.S.2d 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckay-v-khabele-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack