Simon v. Advance Equipment Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 January 1987 |
| Parties | Louis SIMON, et al., Appellants, v. ADVANCE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants, The Robbins Co., Inc., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lipsig, Sullivan & Liapakis, P.C., New York City (Pamela Anagnos Liapakis and Stephen C. Glasser, of counsel), for appellants.
Clark, Gagliardi & Miller, P.C., White Plains (Lawrence T. D'Aloise, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and NIEHOFF, RUBIN and KUNZEMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausmann, J.), entered July 22, 1985, which, inter alia, denied that branch of their motion which sought a further deposition of the defendant The Robbins Company, Inc.
Justice Rubin has been substituted for the late Justice Gibbons (see, 22 NYCRR 670.2[c] ).
ORDERED that the order is modified by granting the aforementioned branch of the motion to the extent that the examination of the defendant The Robbins Co., Inc., through witnesses Harry Watson, Neil Dahmen and Pat Taylor, shall proceed at a time and place to be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by the plaintiffs, or at such time and place as the parties may agree. As so modified, the order is affirmed with costs to the plaintiffs.
The witness produced by the respondent had inadequate knowledge as to matters bearing on material issues in the case, which knowledge would assist the plaintiffs in preparation for trial. The plaintiffs have also established a substantial likelihood that other employees of the respondent do have such knowledge. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to a deposition of these employees (see, Hughson v. St. Francis Hosp. of Port Jervis, 96 A.D.2d 829, 465 N.Y.S.2d 578; Heil v. Nassau Hosp., 99 A.D.2d 482, 470 N.Y.S.2d 422).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Contracting v. Lawrence Union Free Sch. Dist.
...New York, 304 A.D.2d 786, 757 N.Y.S.2d 805; Zollner v. City of New York, 204 A.D.2d 626, 627, 612 N.Y.S.2d 627; Simon v. Advance Equipment Co., 126 A.D.2d 632, 511 N.Y.S.2d 68)Douglas v. New York City Transit Authority, 48 A.D.3d 615, 616.Here, the plaintiff served all of the defendants see......
-
White v. Time
...v. Alexander, 227 A.D.2d 391, 642 N.Y.S.2d 552; Zollner v. City of New York, 204 A.D.2d 626, 612 N.Y.S.2d 627; Simon v. Advance Equip. Co., 126 A.D.2d 632, 511 N.Y.S.2d 68; cf. Fowler v. Yonkers Gospel Mission, 67 A.D.3d 635, 889 N.Y.S.2d 603; Carter v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 225 A.D.2......
-
Colicchio by Colicchio v. City of New York
...of the necessity for taking such depositions (Ayala v. City of New York, 169 A.D.2d 530, 564 N.Y.S.2d 382; cf., Simon v. Advance Equip. Co., 126 A.D.2d 632, 511 N.Y.S.2d 68). While the plaintiffs maintain that Mr. Riccio's testimony is material and necessary because he is knowledgeable abou......
-
Van Deusen v. Norton Co.
...discovery. Notably, Norton produced a deposition witness who claimed ignorance of many relevant matters (see, Simon v. Advance Equip. Co., 126 A.D.2d 632, 511 N.Y.S.2d 68) and, upon advice of counsel, refused to respond to a number of other pertinent inquiries (see, Ferraro v. New York Tel.......