Pomilio-Young v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pomilio-Young v. City of New York

7 A.D.3d 600, 775 N.Y.S.2d 906

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

DecidedMay 10, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 600 (Pomilio-Young v. City of New York) 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

Pomilio-Young v. City of New York, 7 A.D.3d 600, 775 N.Y.S.2d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated April 10, 2003, as denied their motion to direct the defendant to produce an additional witness for deposition, and (2) an order of the same court dated September 12, 2003, as denied that branch of their subsequent motion which was, in effect, for leave to renew.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

A municipality, in the first instance, has the right to determine which of its officers or employees with knowledge of the facts may appear for an examination before trial (see Del Rosa v City of New York, 304 AD2d 786 [2003]; D & S Realty Dev. v Town of Huntington, 295 AD2d 306, 307 [2002]). The plaintiff may demand the production of additional witnesses, upon a showing, among other things, that the representative already deposed had insufficient knowledge or was otherwise inadequate (see Del Rosa v City of New York, supra; Zollner v City of New York, 204 AD2d 626, 627 [1994]). The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the deposition of an additional witness was necessary in this case. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Townes, Crane and Rivera, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated April 10, 2003, as denied their motion to direct the defendant to produce an additional witness for deposition, and (2) an order of the same court dated September 12, 2003, as denied that branch of their subsequent motion which was, in effect, for leave to renew.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

A municipality, in the first instance, has the right to determine which of its officers or employees with knowledge of the facts may appear for an examination before trial (see Del Rosa v City of New York, 304 AD2d 786 [2003]; D & S Realty Dev. v Town of Huntington, 295 AD2d 306, 307 [2002]). The plaintiff may demand the production of additional witnesses, upon a showing, among other things, that the representative already deposed had insufficient knowledge or was otherwise inadequate (see Del Rosa v City of New York, supra; Zollner v City of New York, 204 AD2d 626, 627 [1994]). The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the deposition of an additional witness was necessary in this case. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Townes, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 600, 775 N.Y.S.2d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pomilio-young-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack