Nama Air Cargo Co. v. Unitrans Consolidated, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nama Air Cargo Co. v. Unitrans Consolidated, Inc.

208 A.D.2d 604, 617 N.Y.S.2d 367, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9595

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 604 (Nama Air Cargo Co. v. Unitrans Consolidated, Inc.) 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

Nama Air Cargo Co. v. Unitrans Consolidated, Inc., 208 A.D.2d 604, 617 N.Y.S.2d 367, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover an alleged indebtedness, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated April 12, 1993, as granted the plaintiff’s cross motion to modify a prior order of the same court, dated February 16, 1993, by vacating the provision directing the plaintiff to submit to an oral deposition, and substituting [605]*605therefor a provision permitting an oral deposition of the plaintiff in this jurisdiction only on certain conditions.

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

The plaintiff, a South Korean company, demonstrated that it would be expensive and time-consuming for its president to travel to New York for a deposition before trial and then again for the trial (see, Oneto v Hotel Waldorf-Astoria Corp., 65 AD2d 520, 521; Zilken v Leader, 23 AD2d 644; Ascona Cie., Anstalt v Horn, 32 AD2d 755). Accordingly, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff a protective order (see, CPLR 3103 [a]; Boylin v Eagle Telephonics, 130 AD2d 538). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover an alleged indebtedness, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated April 12, 1993, as granted the plaintiff’s cross motion to modify a prior order of the same court, dated February 16, 1993, by vacating the provision directing the plaintiff to submit to an oral deposition, and substituting [605]*605therefor a provision permitting an oral deposition of the plaintiff in this jurisdiction only on certain conditions.

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

The plaintiff, a South Korean company, demonstrated that it would be expensive and time-consuming for its president to travel to New York for a deposition before trial and then again for the trial (see, Oneto v Hotel Waldorf-Astoria Corp., 65 AD2d 520, 521; Zilken v Leader, 23 AD2d 644; Ascona Cie., Anstalt v Horn, 32 AD2d 755). Accordingly, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff a protective order (see, CPLR 3103 [a]; Boylin v Eagle Telephonics, 130 AD2d 538). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 604, 617 N.Y.S.2d 367, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nama-air-cargo-co-v-unitrans-consolidated-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack