Thristino v. County of Suffolk
| Decision Date | 16 November 2010 |
| Parties | Ruth THRISTINO, etc., appellant, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
78 A.D.3d 927
Ruth THRISTINO, etc., appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, et al., respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov. 16, 2010.
Wallace, Witty, Frampton & Veltry, P.C., Brentwood, N.Y. (Peter Graff of counsel), for appellant.
Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Marcia J. Lynn of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated May 19, 2009, which denied her motion to strike the defendants' answer for failing to provide certain disclosure, or to compel the defendants to produce a specified additional witness for a deposition, and (2) an order of the same court dated April 13, 2010.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated April 13, 2010, is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated May 19, 2009, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of her motion which was to compel the defendants to produce a specified additional witness for a deposition. A corporate entity has the right to designate, in the first instance, the employee who shall be examined ( see Barone v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 260 A.D.2d 417, 687 N.Y.S.2d 718; Mercado v. Alexander, 227 A.D.2d 391, 642 N.Y.S.2d 552; Defina v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 217 A.D.2d 681, 682, 630 N.Y.S.2d 533; Tower v. Chemical Bank, 140 A.D.2d 514, 528 N.Y.S.2d 413). The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendants' representative who had already been deposed had insufficient knowledge
, or was otherwise inadequate ( see Barone v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 260 A.D.2d at 417, 687 N.Y.S.2d 718; Saxe v. City of New York, 250 A.D.2d 751, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1002; Carter v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 225 A.D.2d 512, 638 N.Y.S.2d 770; Perez v. City of White Plains, 222 A.D.2d 663, 635 N.Y.S.2d 670; Zollner v. City of New York, 204 A.D.2d 626, 612 N.Y.S.2d 627).With respect to the other witness whom the plaintiff asked to depose, the defendants advised the plaintiff that the witness was no longer employed by the defendants, and they provided his last known address to the plaintiff. As to the documents demanded by the plaintiff, the defendants advised the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cardona v. 1717 44th St.
...are deemed to have established that PCC was required to produce an additional witness for deposition (see Thristino v County of Suffolk, 78 A.D.3d 927, 927-928 [2d Dept 2010]), absent any evidence that it obtained an order directing the additional deposition or otherwise made any effort to ......
-
Cardona v. 1717 44th St.
...are deemed to have established that PCC was required to produce an additional witness for deposition (see Thristino v County of Suffolk, 78 A.D.3d 927, 927-928 [2d Dept 2010]), absent any evidence that it obtained an order directing the additional deposition or otherwise made any effort to ......
-
Trueforge Global Mach. Corp.. v. Group
...to the prosecution of the case” ( Zollner v. City of New York, 204 A.D.2d 626, 627, 612 N.Y.S.2d 627; see Thristino v. County of Suffolk, 78 A.D.3d 927, 910 N.Y.S.2d 664; Spohn–Konen v. Town of Brookhaven, 74 A.D.3d 1049, 902 N.Y.S.2d 391; Seattle Pac. Indus., Inc. v. Golden Val. Realty Ass......
-
Gomez v. State
...to the prosecution of the case" (Zollner v. City of New York, 204 A.D.2d 626, 627, 612 N.Y.S.2d 627; see Thristino v. County of Suffolk, 78 A.D.3d 927, 910 N.Y.S.2d 664; Spohn–Konen v. Town of Brookhaven, 74 A.D.3d 1049, 902 N.Y.S.2d 391; Seattle Pac. Indus., Inc. v. Golden Val. Realty Asso......