Williams v. J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc.

162 A.D.2d 524, 556 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7315

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

DecidedJune 11, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 162 A.D.2d 524 (Williams v. J.B. Hunt Transport Services, 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

Williams v. J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., 162 A.D.2d 524, 556 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7315 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated October 31, 1988, which denied its motion for a protective order vacating a notice to conduct a deposition served by the plaintiffs. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated February 9, 1989, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination (CPLR 5517 [b]).

[525]*525Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 31, 1988, is dismissed as that order was superseded by the order dated February 9, 1989, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated February 9, 1989, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for a protective order (CPLR 3103). The courts have consistently encouraged liberal pretrial disclosure (e.g., Cynthia B. v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Center, 60 NY2d 452, 461). The appellant should, if possible, produce a witness with knowledge as to whether it maintains any records which would be useful in determining whether any of its trucks might have been in the vicinity of the accident at the time in question.

We also see no improvident exercise of discretion with respect to the court’s failure to direct the plaintiffs to pay the costs incurred by the appellant in producing a witness. If it is ultimately shown that the plaintiffs’ claim is without merit, then the appellant may seek to have the court award appropriate disbursements as part of the final judgment (see, CPLR 8301 [a] [12]; Allied Excavating Corp. v Graves Equip. Co., 99 AD2d 499). Bracken, J. P., Fiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, 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, etc., the defendant J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated October 31, 1988, which denied its motion for a protective order vacating a notice to conduct a deposition served by the plaintiffs. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated February 9, 1989, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination (CPLR 5517 [b]).

[525]*525Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 31, 1988, is dismissed as that order was superseded by the order dated February 9, 1989, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated February 9, 1989, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for a protective order (CPLR 3103). The courts have consistently encouraged liberal pretrial disclosure (e.g., Cynthia B. v New Rochelle Hosp. Med. Center, 60 NY2d 452, 461). The appellant should, if possible, produce a witness with knowledge as to whether it maintains any records which would be useful in determining whether any of its trucks might have been in the vicinity of the accident at the time in question.

We also see no improvident exercise of discretion with respect to the court’s failure to direct the plaintiffs to pay the costs incurred by the appellant in producing a witness. If it is ultimately shown that the plaintiffs’ claim is without merit, then the appellant may seek to have the court award appropriate disbursements as part of the final judgment (see, CPLR 8301 [a] [12]; Allied Excavating Corp. v Graves Equip. Co., 99 AD2d 499). Bracken, J. P., Fiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 524, 556 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-jb-hunt-transport-services-inc-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack