North Shore Towers Apartments, Inc. v. Zurich Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

North Shore Towers Apartments, Inc. v. Zurich Insurance

262 A.D.2d 468, 691 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6643

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

DecidedJune 14, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 468 (North Shore Towers Apartments, Inc. v. Zurich Insurance) 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

North Shore Towers Apartments, Inc. v. Zurich Insurance, 262 A.D.2d 468, 691 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated June 25, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion to quash subpoenas served on the defendant’s expert witnesses.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not err in quashing the subpoenas served on the defendant’s expert witnesses, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that “special circumstances” existed warranting the depositions of the defendant’s experts (see, CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [iii]; 232 Broadway Corp. v New York Prop. Ins. [469]*469Underwriting Assn., 171 AD2d 861). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann, Luciano and Feuerstein, 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 breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated June 25, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion to quash subpoenas served on the defendant’s expert witnesses.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not err in quashing the subpoenas served on the defendant’s expert witnesses, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that “special circumstances” existed warranting the depositions of the defendant’s experts (see, CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [iii]; 232 Broadway Corp. v New York Prop. Ins. [469]*469Underwriting Assn., 171 AD2d 861). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 468, 691 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-shore-towers-apartments-inc-v-zurich-insurance-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack