Ozen v. Yilmaz
| Decision Date | 02 March 1992 |
| Citation | 580 N.Y.S.2d 468,181 A.D.2d 666 |
| Parties | Turgut OZEN, Respondent, v. Hamza YILMAZ, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Bondi & Iovino, New Hyde Park (Anthony F. Iovino, of counsel), for appellants.
Tanenbaum & Sibener, Commack (Paul S. Sibener, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and SULLIVAN, BALLETTA and RITTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Hamza Yilmaz and 4000 Hempstead, Inc., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated April 11, 1990, as (1) directed them to pay for the costs of an interpreter at their examinations before trial, and (2) denied their cross motion for leave to serve an amended answer to include new affirmative defenses and a counterclaim.
ORDERED that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof denying the defendants' cross motion for leave to serve an amended answer, and substituting therefor a provision granting the defendants' cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, the defendants' proposed amended answer is deemed served, and the plaintiff's time to serve a reply is extended until 20 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.
The defendant Hamza Yilmaz asserts that he does not understand the English language and that he requires the services of an interpreter at any examination before trial. He contends that under CPLR 3114, the plaintiff was required to pay for the interpreter and that the court erred in directing him and his codefendant to pay the interpreter's expenses. The first sentence of CPLR 3114 provides that "if the witness to be examined does not understand the English language, the examining party must, at his own expense, provide a translation of all questions and answers". However, this provision, as all the disclosure provisions of CPLR article 31, must be viewed in light of the court's broad discretion under CPLR 3103(a) to regulate the "use of any disclosure device" (see, U.S. Pioneer Electronics Corp. v. Nikko Electric Corp. of America, 47 N.Y.2d 914, 916, 419 N.Y.S.2d 484, 393 N.E.2d 478; Nitz v. Prudential Bache Securities, 102 A.D.2d 914, 915, 477 N.Y.S.2d 479). The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it shifted the burden for paying the costs of the interpreter from the plaintiff to the defendants (see, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons.Laws of N.Y., Book 7B, CPLR C3114:1, at p. 540; 3A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, p 3114.01; see also, Castagnazzi v. Schlecker, 159 A.D.2d 533, 552 N.Y.S.2d 398).
However, the court erred in denying the defendants' cross motion for leave to serve an amended answer so as to assert new affirmative defenses and a counterclaim. It is generally accepted that leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted absent a showing of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party (see, CPLR 3025[b]; Fahey v. County of Ontario, 44 N.Y.2d 934,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norwood v. City of New York
...defense might defeat his cause of action is not the type of prejudice which will bar a motion to amend (see, Ozen v. Yilmaz, 181 A.D.2d 666, 667, 580 N.Y.S.2d 468). Instead, he had to demonstrate that he "has been hindered in the preparation of his case or has been prevented from taking som......
- Owasco River Ry., Inc. v. State
-
Signify Holding B.V v. TP-Link Research Am. Corp
... ... § 3103(a) and under their broad discretion to regulate ... discovery. Ozen v. Yilmaz, 181 A.D.2d 666, 580 ... N.Y.S.2d 468 (2d Dep't 1992) (court did not err in ... shifting expenses of interpreter from plaintiff ... ...
-
Signify Holding B.V v. TP-Link Research Am. Corp
... ... § 3103(a) and under their broad discretion to regulate ... discovery. Ozen v. Yilmaz, 181 A.D.2d 666, 580 ... N.Y.S.2d 468 (2d Dep't 1992) (court did not err in ... shifting expenses of interpreter from plaintiff ... ...
-
Objecting during depositions
...that were asked. His attempt to amend the transcript many months after changes were required to be served was untimely. Ozen v. Yilmaz , 181 A.D.2d 666, 580 N.Y.S.2d 468 (2d Dept. 1992). In cases such as where there is a vast disparity in economic resources between the parties, the court ma......
-
Objecting during depositions
...that were asked. His attempt to amend the transcript many months after changes were required to be served was untimely. Ozen v. Yilmaz , 181 A.D.2d 666, 580 N.Y.S.2d 468 (2d Dept. 1992). In cases such as where there is a vast disparity in economic resources between the parties, the court ma......
-
Objecting during depositions
...that were asked. His attempt to amend the transcript many months after changes were required to be served was untimely. Ozen v. Yilmaz , 181 A.D.2d 666, 580 N.Y.S.2d 468 (2d Dept. 1992). In cases such as where there is a vast disparity in economic resources between the parties, the court ma......
-
Objecting during depositions
...that were asked. His attempt to amend the transcript many months after changes were required to be served was untimely. Ozen v. Yilmaz , 181 A.D.2d 666, 580 N.Y.S.2d 468 (2d Dept. 1992). In cases such as where there is a vast disparity in economic resources between the parties, the court ma......