Morrison v. Chemical Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morrison v. Chemical Bank

200 A.D.2d 391, 608 N.Y.S.2d 79

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A.D.2d 391 (Morrison v. Chemical Bank) 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

Morrison v. Chemical Bank, 200 A.D.2d 391, 608 N.Y.S.2d 79 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered February 17, 1993, which denied plaintiff’s motion to compel examination before trial of two nonparty witnesses and granted defendant’s cross motion for a protective order, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court acted within its discretion in finding that the previous depositions of the corporate employees responsible for the investigation and the decision to discharge plaintiff, as well as documents provided by defendant, were sufficient for plaintiff’s purposes, and that the deposition now sought would be "unreasonably intrusive”. We note that although the parties elected to chart their own course, the theory of liability for which disclosure was sought appeared nowhere in plaintiff’s pleadings. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered February 17, 1993, which denied plaintiff’s motion to compel examination before trial of two nonparty witnesses and granted defendant’s cross motion for a protective order, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court acted within its discretion in finding that the previous depositions of the corporate employees responsible for the investigation and the decision to discharge plaintiff, as well as documents provided by defendant, were sufficient for plaintiff’s purposes, and that the deposition now sought would be "unreasonably intrusive”. We note that although the parties elected to chart their own course, the theory of liability for which disclosure was sought appeared nowhere in plaintiff’s pleadings. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 391, 608 N.Y.S.2d 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrison-v-chemical-bank-nyappdiv-1994.