Smith v. Parrish

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Parrish

181 A.D.2d 589

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A.D.2d 589 (Smith v. Parrish) 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

Smith v. Parrish, 181 A.D.2d 589 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered February 8, 1991, which quashed defendant’s subpoena for the deposition of non-party Roger Wolfe, M.S.W., unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS court that defendant failed to show unusual or unanticipated circumstances justifying his delay in seeking to depose the non-party witness for more than two months after plaintiffs filing of a certificate of readiness (22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Goldsmith v Howmedica, Inc., 158 AD2d 335). The motion should also be denied for failure to demonstrate circumstances necessitating a non-party deposition (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]), in that defendant did not show that the information sought could not be obtained from other sources. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Kassal, Rubin and Smith JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered February 8, 1991, which quashed defendant’s subpoena for the deposition of non-party Roger Wolfe, M.S.W., unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS court that defendant failed to show unusual or unanticipated circumstances justifying his delay in seeking to depose the non-party witness for more than two months after plaintiffs filing of a certificate of readiness (22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Goldsmith v Howmedica, Inc., 158 AD2d 335). The motion should also be denied for failure to demonstrate circumstances necessitating a non-party deposition (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]), in that defendant did not show that the information sought could not be obtained from other sources. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Kassal, Rubin and Smith JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-parrish-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack