Uvaydova v. New York Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Uvaydova v. New York Telephone Co.

226 A.D.2d 626, 641 N.Y.S.2d 565, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4342

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

DecidedApril 22, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 626 (Uvaydova v. New York Telephone 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

Uvaydova v. New York Telephone Co., 226 A.D.2d 626, 641 N.Y.S.2d 565, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated September 22, 1994, as denied her motion to compel the defendant City of New York to produce an additional witness for an examination before trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The court properly denied the plaintiffs motion to compel [627]*627the City of New York to produce an additional witness for a deposition. "In order to show that additional depositions are necessary, the moving party must show (1) that the representatives already deposed had insufficient knowledge, or were otherwise inadequate, and (2) there is a substantial likelihood that the persons sought for depositions possess information which is material and necessary to the prosecution of the case” (Zollner v City of New York, 204 AD2d 626, 627). The plaintiff failed to establish either one of the foregoing elements. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated September 22, 1994, as denied her motion to compel the defendant City of New York to produce an additional witness for an examination before trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The court properly denied the plaintiffs motion to compel [627]*627the City of New York to produce an additional witness for a deposition. "In order to show that additional depositions are necessary, the moving party must show (1) that the representatives already deposed had insufficient knowledge, or were otherwise inadequate, and (2) there is a substantial likelihood that the persons sought for depositions possess information which is material and necessary to the prosecution of the case” (Zollner v City of New York, 204 AD2d 626, 627). The plaintiff failed to establish either one of the foregoing elements. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 626, 641 N.Y.S.2d 565, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uvaydova-v-new-york-telephone-co-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack