From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mercado v. Alexander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 6, 1996
227 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

May 6, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts, with costs, and the motion is granted.

It is well settled that a corporation may designate which of its officers, directors, or employees shall represent it for the purposes of pretrial depositions ( see, Zollner v. City of New York, 204 A.D.2d 626). However, depositions of additional witnesses may be ordered if the movant can demonstrate that the representatives already deposed had insufficient knowledge or were otherwise inadequate and that there is a substantial likelihood that the proposed witnesses possess information which is material and necessary for the prosecution of the case ( Zollner v. City of New York, supra; Faber v. New York City Tr. Auth., 177 A.D.2d 321, 323). Under the circumstances of the present case, we agree that the plaintiff has demonstrated his need for the depositions of the additional Transit Authority employees who were inside the truck which allegedly struck him. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mercado v. Alexander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 6, 1996
227 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Mercado v. Alexander

Case Details

Full title:DAVID MERCADO, Appellant, v. EVEREST L. ALEXANDER et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 6, 1996

Citations

227 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
642 N.Y.S.2d 552

Citing Cases

White v. Time

Under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs established that the witness who was produced had an…

Trueforge Global Mach. Corp. v. Viraj Group

Furthermore, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting, upon reargument,…