From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Saxe v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 18, 1998
250 A.D.2d 751 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

May 18, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The court properly denied that branch of the motion by the appellant which was to compel the respondent City of New York to produce three additional witnesses for depositions. "In order to show that additional depositions are necessary, the moving party must show (1) that the representatives already deposed had insufficient knowledge, or were otherwise inadequate, and (2) there is a substantial likelihood that the persons sought for depositions possess information which is material and necessary to the prosecution of the case" ( Zollner v. City of New York, 204 A.D.2d 626, 627; see also, Uvaydova v. New York Tel. Co., 226 A.D.2d 626); The appellant failed to establish either one of the foregoing elements.

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Saxe v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 18, 1998
250 A.D.2d 751 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Saxe v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL J. SAXE, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al, Respondents…

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

Date published: May 18, 1998

Citations

250 A.D.2d 751 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
671 N.Y.S.2d 1002

Citing Cases

Spohn-Konen v. Town of Brook-Haven

r material and necessary in the prosecution . . . of an action" ( see Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21…

Trubia v. City of New York

Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion to strike the City's answer is denied. Finally, those branches of plaintiffs'…