Yoshida Printing Co. v. Aiba

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yoshida Printing Co. v. Aiba

240 A.D.2d 233, 659 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6480

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

DecidedJune 12, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 233 (Yoshida Printing Co. v. Aiba) 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

Yoshida Printing Co. v. Aiba, 240 A.D.2d 233, 659 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6480 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered November 21, 1996 and January 21, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s cross motion for a protective order against oral depositions of two witnesses, and denied plaintiff’s motion to renew its motion for a protective order, respectively, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion for a protective order was properly denied in the absence of an affidavit of the translator of the documents purporting to demonstrate that the two witnesses in question are too frail to travel to New York (CPLR 2101 [b]). We note plaintiff’s representation, made for purposes of opposing a prior motion by defendant to dismiss the action on the ground of forum non conveniens, that it would make the two witnesses available for depositions in New York at its own expense (213 AD2d 275). Plaintiff’s motion to renew was properly denied for failure to show that the original omission of the documents was the result of an excusable mistake or inadvertence. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Tom, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered November 21, 1996 and January 21, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s cross motion for a protective order against oral depositions of two witnesses, and denied plaintiff’s motion to renew its motion for a protective order, respectively, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion for a protective order was properly denied in the absence of an affidavit of the translator of the documents purporting to demonstrate that the two witnesses in question are too frail to travel to New York (CPLR 2101 [b]). We note plaintiff’s representation, made for purposes of opposing a prior motion by defendant to dismiss the action on the ground of forum non conveniens, that it would make the two witnesses available for depositions in New York at its own expense (213 AD2d 275). Plaintiff’s motion to renew was properly denied for failure to show that the original omission of the documents was the result of an excusable mistake or inadvertence. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Tom, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 233, 659 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yoshida-printing-co-v-aiba-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack