Radolinski v. Otis Elevator Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Radolinski v. Otis Elevator Co.

188 A.D.2d 289

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 289 (Radolinski v. Otis Elevator Co.) 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

Radolinski v. Otis Elevator Co., 188 A.D.2d 289 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on or about December 18, 1991, which denied the motion of defendant and third-party plaintiff Otis Elevator Company to continue the depositions of two nonparty witnesses, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Whether or not adequate circumstances have been shown to support discovery against a nonparty is generally a determination resting within the sound discretion of the court to which the application is made (Brady v Ottaway Newspapers, 63 NY2d 1031, 1032). In this case, the movant has offered no reason why an assessment of plaintiff’s physical condition cannot be made in the usual way from an evaluation of the medical findings (see, D’Amico v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 182 AD2d 462), or that the information sought cannot be obtained from other sources (Dioguardi v St. John’s Riverside Hosp., 144 AD2d 333, 334). Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the motion court’s denial of the application. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on or about December 18, 1991, which denied the motion of defendant and third-party plaintiff Otis Elevator Company to continue the depositions of two nonparty witnesses, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Whether or not adequate circumstances have been shown to support discovery against a nonparty is generally a determination resting within the sound discretion of the court to which the application is made (Brady v Ottaway Newspapers, 63 NY2d 1031, 1032). In this case, the movant has offered no reason why an assessment of plaintiff’s physical condition cannot be made in the usual way from an evaluation of the medical findings (see, D’Amico v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 182 AD2d 462), or that the information sought cannot be obtained from other sources (Dioguardi v St. John’s Riverside Hosp., 144 AD2d 333, 334). Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the motion court’s denial of the application. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/radolinski-v-otis-elevator-co-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack