Rubin v. United Methodist City Society, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rubin v. United Methodist City Society, Inc.

90 A.D.2d 809, 455 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19037

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A.D.2d 809 (Rubin v. United Methodist City Society, 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

Rubin v. United Methodist City Society, Inc., 90 A.D.2d 809, 455 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19037 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by the conservator of the property of Victoria Greenidge, inter alia, to recover damages from Evelyn Winters based on fraud and conversion, James Daly appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hyman, J.), dated March 30,1982, which directed that he appear for a pretrial deposition as a nonparty witness. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. In our view, plaintiff has shown that the court-ordered deposition of appellant is necessary in order to fully prepare for trial in the action for fraud and conversion. Consequently, the “special circumstances” requirement of CPLR 3101 (subd [a], par [4]) has been met. Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by the conservator of the property of Victoria Greenidge, inter alia, to recover damages from Evelyn Winters based on fraud and conversion, James Daly appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hyman, J.), dated March 30,1982, which directed that he appear for a pretrial deposition as a nonparty witness. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. In our view, plaintiff has shown that the court-ordered deposition of appellant is necessary in order to fully prepare for trial in the action for fraud and conversion. Consequently, the “special circumstances” requirement of CPLR 3101 (subd [a], par [4]) has been met. Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.2d 809, 455 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubin-v-united-methodist-city-society-inc-nyappdiv-1982.