Wo Yee Hing Realty, Corp. v. Stern

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wo Yee Hing Realty, Corp. v. Stern

74 A.D.3d 469, 901 N.Y.S.2d 833

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

DecidedJune 8, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 74 A.D.3d 469 (Wo Yee Hing Realty, Corp. v. Stern) 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

Wo Yee Hing Realty, Corp. v. Stern, 74 A.D.3d 469, 901 N.Y.S.2d 833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered April 8, 2009, which, to the extent appealable, denied defendant’s motion to renew his prior motion to compel the deposition of plaintiff Chun Yee Yung, also known as Sunny Yung, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Having deposed two of the corporate plaintiffs three principals, defendant failed to make the requisite “detailed showing” of the necessity of taking the additional deposition of Sunny Yung (see Alexopoulos v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 37 AD3d 232 [2007]; Tolliver v New York City Hous. Auth., 225 AD2d 412 [1996]; Colicchio v City of New York, 181 AD2d 528 [1992]). De[470]*470spite his own presence during the discussions concerning the subject real estate transaction, defendant failed to refute the deposed principals’ testimony that Sunny Yung attended the closing only as an observer and was not involved in the transaction. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered April 8, 2009, which, to the extent appealable, denied defendant’s motion to renew his prior motion to compel the deposition of plaintiff Chun Yee Yung, also known as Sunny Yung, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Having deposed two of the corporate plaintiffs three principals, defendant failed to make the requisite “detailed showing” of the necessity of taking the additional deposition of Sunny Yung (see Alexopoulos v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 37 AD3d 232 [2007]; Tolliver v New York City Hous. Auth., 225 AD2d 412 [1996]; Colicchio v City of New York, 181 AD2d 528 [1992]). De[470]*470spite his own presence during the discussions concerning the subject real estate transaction, defendant failed to refute the deposed principals’ testimony that Sunny Yung attended the closing only as an observer and was not involved in the transaction. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.3d 469, 901 N.Y.S.2d 833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wo-yee-hing-realty-corp-v-stern-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack