New GPC Inc. v. Kaieteur Newspaper Inc.

124 A.D.3d 437, 1 N.Y.S.3d 57

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered April 7, 2014, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion to compel certain deposition testimony, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff failed to show that the editor of a “sister” newspaper of defendant, which has no common ownership, but which appears to dictate content for defendant paper, is under the control of defendant so as to require defendant to produce him (compare Pegasus Aviation I, Inc. v Varig Logistica S.A., 118 AD3d 428, 430-431 [1st Dept 2014]). Nevertheless, as recognized by the motion court, plaintiff may seek the editor’s deposition through a properly issued deposition subpoena. Plaintiff also makes no substantive argument as to why it should not be required to designate deponents of defendant corporation, rather than simply demand depositions of “any” employees, directors or officers with knowledge of the facts (see CPLR 3106 [d]).

Concur— Tom, J.E, Saxe, Feinman, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.