Pohle v. Gayle's Store Front Glass & Hardware Supplies, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pohle v. Gayle's Store Front Glass & Hardware Supplies, Inc.

250 A.D.2d 828, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5990

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

DecidedMay 26, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 828 (Pohle v. Gayle's Store Front Glass & Hardware Supplies, 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

Pohle v. Gayle's Store Front Glass & Hardware Supplies, Inc., 250 A.D.2d 828, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5990 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of .an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated January 31, 1997, as denied her motion to vacate the respondents’ notice to take a further deposition of the plaintiff based upon new injuries alleged in her amended verified bill of particulars, and granted that branch of the respondents’ cross motion which was to compel the plaintiff to appear at the further deposition based upon the alleged new injuries.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is directed to submit to a further deposition at a time and place to be specified in a written notice of at least 10 days to be given by the respondents or at such other time and place ás the parties shall agree.

[829]*829The Supreme Court properly ordered the plaintiff to submit to a further deposition, as her amendment to her verified bill of particulars alleged new injuries (see, Moore v Wheels, Inc., 160 AD2d 493; Germana v Chase Manhattan Bank, 124 AD2d 500, 501). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, 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 personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of .an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated January 31, 1997, as denied her motion to vacate the respondents’ notice to take a further deposition of the plaintiff based upon new injuries alleged in her amended verified bill of particulars, and granted that branch of the respondents’ cross motion which was to compel the plaintiff to appear at the further deposition based upon the alleged new injuries.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is directed to submit to a further deposition at a time and place to be specified in a written notice of at least 10 days to be given by the respondents or at such other time and place ás the parties shall agree.

[829]*829The Supreme Court properly ordered the plaintiff to submit to a further deposition, as her amendment to her verified bill of particulars alleged new injuries (see, Moore v Wheels, Inc., 160 AD2d 493; Germana v Chase Manhattan Bank, 124 AD2d 500, 501). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 828, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pohle-v-gayles-store-front-glass-hardware-supplies-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack