Schillaci v. Jamaica Sav. and Loan
| Decision Date | 01 November 1982 |
| Citation | 455 N.Y.S.2d 294,90 A.D.2d 770 |
| Parties | Thomas SCHILLACI, Appellant, v. JAMAICA SAVINGS AND LOAN, Respondent. (and a third-party action). |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Paul Mirman, P.C., Brooklyn, for appellant.
McLaughlin, Simone & Lawlor, New York City (Michael J. Caulfield, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and LAZER, MANGANO and BROWN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 30, 1982, which denied his motion for a further examination before trial of the defendant by certain employees.
Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. The defendant is directed to produce for a further examination before trial the three employees whose testimony is sought by the plaintiff. The examination shall proceed at a time and place to be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by plaintiff, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree.
Notwithstanding the liberalization of discovery procedures (see CPLR 3101 et seq.), it remains the rule that, in the first instance, a corporation may designate which of its officers, directors or employees shall represent it for the purposes of pretrial depositions (see, e.g., Rosner v. Maimonides Hosp., A.D.2d, 453 N.Y.S.2d 30 Instructional Tel. Corp. v. National Broadcasting Co., 63 A.D.2d 644, 404 N.Y.S.2d 376). Where additional persons are sought to be deposed, the examining party must carry the burden of demonstrating that corporate representatives already deposed possessed insufficient knowledge or were otherwise inadequate (see, e.g., Besen v. C.P.L. Yacht Sales, 34 A.D.2d 789, 312 N.Y.S.2d 144).
In the case at bar, the plaintiff has made a sufficient showing that the witness produced by the defendant corporation was inadequate and that the three named employees of the defendant whom plaintiff seeks to depose are in possession of information which is material and necessary to the prosecution of the cause of action. Accordingly, Special Term erred in denying the plaintiff's motion for a further examination before trial of the three named employees.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Vesely v. Town of New Windsor
-
Rattner v. Planning Com'n of Village of Pleasantville, 1
...have resulted in the delay and prolongati of litigation preventing a resolution of the matters at issue (cf. Schillaci v. Jamaica Sav. & Loan, 90 A.D.2d 770, 455 N.Y.S.2d 294; Powers v. East Hudson Parkway Auth., 88 A.D.2d 948, 451 N.Y.S.2d 185; B & D Jewelry Corp. v. Schneier, 78 A.D.2d 80......
-
Crazytown Furniture, Inc. v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.
...plaintiffs in preparation for trial" (Simon v. Advance Equip. Co., 126 A.D.2d 632, 511 N.Y.S.2d 68; see also, Schillaci v. Jamaica Sav. & Loan, 90 A.D.2d 770, 455 N.Y.S.2d 294). Therefore, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in directing the depositions of the four addit......
-
Saieh by Saieh v. Demetro
...provided to them in documentary form (see, Colicchio v. City of New York, 181 A.D.2d 528, 529, 581 N.Y.S.2d 36; Schillaci v. Jamaica Sav. & Loan, 90 A.D.2d 770, 455 N.Y.S.2d 294). Thus, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' discovery requ......