Tuncbilek v. McGrath

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tuncbilek v. McGrath

80 A.D.2d 760, 439 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10538

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

DecidedMarch 3, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 80 A.D.2d 760 (Tuncbilek v. McGrath) 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

Tuncbilek v. McGrath, 80 A.D.2d 760, 439 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10538 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 3, 1980, which, inter alia, granted defendants leave to examine the nonparty witness Dalhir, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, to permit the examination also of the nonparty witness Michael Prieto, and, except, as thus modified, affirmed. Defendants adequately demonstrated special circumstances to warrant deposing the operator of the other vehicle involved in the underlying negligence claim which gives rise to this attorney’s malpractice action. (See CPLR 3101, subd [a], par [4].) Special Term properly denied the requested relief as to the other nonparty witnesses whose examinations were also sought. Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Markewich, Lupiano, Silverman and Bloom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 3, 1980, which, inter alia, granted defendants leave to examine the nonparty witness Dalhir, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, to permit the examination also of the nonparty witness Michael Prieto, and, except, as thus modified, affirmed. Defendants adequately demonstrated special circumstances to warrant deposing the operator of the other vehicle involved in the underlying negligence claim which gives rise to this attorney’s malpractice action. (See CPLR 3101, subd [a], par [4].) Special Term properly denied the requested relief as to the other nonparty witnesses whose examinations were also sought. Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Markewich, Lupiano, Silverman and Bloom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.2d 760, 439 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuncbilek-v-mcgrath-nyappdiv-1981.