Thorson v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thorson v. New York City Transit Authority

305 A.D.2d 666, 759 N.Y.S.2d 880

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

DecidedMay 27, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 666 (Thorson v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Thorson v. New York City Transit Authority, 305 A.D.2d 666, 759 N.Y.S.2d 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated June 3, 2002, which denied his motion to quash a subpoena issued to a nonparty, Juan Cortes, directing him to appear for a deposition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena issued to Juan Cortes. The defendant demonstrated that Cortes has information that is material and necessary to the defense of this [667]*667action (see CPLR 3101 [a] [4]), and that this information is otherwise unobtainable (see O’Neill v Oakgrove Constr., 71 NY2d 521, 526 [1988]; Abbadessa v Sprint, 291 AD2d 363 [2002]; Bostrom v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 285 AD2d 482 [2001]; Maxwell v Snapper, Inc., 249 AD2d 374 [1998]; Dioguardi v St. John’s Riverside Hosp., 144 AD2d 333 [1988]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Adams 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated June 3, 2002, which denied his motion to quash a subpoena issued to a nonparty, Juan Cortes, directing him to appear for a deposition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena issued to Juan Cortes. The defendant demonstrated that Cortes has information that is material and necessary to the defense of this [667]*667action (see CPLR 3101 [a] [4]), and that this information is otherwise unobtainable (see O’Neill v Oakgrove Constr., 71 NY2d 521, 526 [1988]; Abbadessa v Sprint, 291 AD2d 363 [2002]; Bostrom v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 285 AD2d 482 [2001]; Maxwell v Snapper, Inc., 249 AD2d 374 [1998]; Dioguardi v St. John’s Riverside Hosp., 144 AD2d 333 [1988]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 666, 759 N.Y.S.2d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thorson-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack