Edwards-Pitt v. Doe
| Decision Date | 13 May 2002 |
| Citation | 294 A.D.2d 395,741 N.Y.S.2d 909 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | COVENTRY EDWARDS-PITT, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>JOHN DOE et al., Defendants, and<BR>ROBERT WALSH et al., Respondents. |
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying her motion, inter alia, to compel the defendants Robert Walsh, Mariann Walsh, Ed Wang, and Donna Wang (hereinafter the defendants) to submit further responses to interrogatories already responded to or properly objected to by them (see CPLR 3103). The CPLR does not set forth any order of priority as to the use of the various disclosure devices. A party is generally free to choose both the discovery devices it wishes to use and the order in which to use them (see Weeks Off. Prod. v Chemical Bank, 178 AD2d 113; Kaye v Kaye, 102 AD2d 682; Barouh Eaton Allen Corp. v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 76 AD2d 873; Katz v Posner, 23 AD2d 774). Here, the plaintiff has not only used interrogatories, but has also used notices to admit. Thus, the court's directive to the parties to proceed with oral depositions instead of responding to further interrogatories was proper, since under the facts of this case, the court's determination will expedite the discovery process (see Barouh Eaton Allen Corp. v International Bus. Machs. Corp., supra; see also Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3101:2, CPLR 3130:1).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of Travelers Indem. Co. v. Milan Med., P.C., 2009 NY Slip Op 31604(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 7/9/2009)
...P. C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 51140U, 3 (App, Term, 2d Dept 2009) (unreported); see also Edwards-Pitt v Doe, 294 A.D.2d 395,396 (2d Dept. 2002). Given the j pertinence of the requested discovery to Travelers' proffered defense, the court directs Milan to comply wit......
-
Faggione v. Room Mate Hotel NY, Inc.
...was free to choose the discovery device it wished to use and was not confined to employ another device prior, (see Edwards-Pitt v Doe, 294 A.D.2d 395 [20d Dept. 2002], Barouh Eaton Allen Corp. v Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 76 A.D.2d 873, 874 [20 Dept. 1980]). In light of the above, plaintiffs ......
-
Geffner v. Mercy Med. Ctr.
...under the particular circumstances, that the action will be expedited by the use of one device prior to another ( see Edwards–Pitt v. Doe, 294 A.D.2d 395, 741 N.Y.S.2d 909; Barouh Eaton Allen Corp. v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., 76 A.D.2d 873, 429 N.Y.S.2d 33). Here, the Supreme Court,......
-
Nimkoff v. Cent. Park Plaza Assocs., LLC, 2013-03210
...A party is entitled to “choose both the discovery devices it wishes to use and the order in which to use them” (Edwards–Pitt v. Doe, 294 A.D.2d 395, 396, 741 N.Y.S.2d 909 ; see Samide v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 16 A.D.3d 482, 791 N.Y.S.2d 643 ; Falk v. Inzinna, 299 A.D.2d 120, 1......