From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alcamo v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 3, 1998
253 A.D.2d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

August 3, 1998

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


Ordered that the order is modified by (1) deleting therefrom the provision denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to depose Detective Bowden and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion, and (2) by deleting therefrom the provision granting that branch of the cross motion which was for a protective order with respect to Detective Bowden and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff; and it is further,

Ordered that the deposition shall be conducted at a time and place to be set in a written notice of at least 10 days, to be served by the plaintiff upon the defendant City of New York, or at such time and place as the parties may agree.

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 ( see, Zollner v. City of New York, 204 A.D.2d 626, 627). The plaintiff has shown that Detective Bowden performed the tests and computations necessary in arriving at the estimated minimum rate of speed of the police vehicle just prior to the accident involved in this case, and that the deposition testimony of Police Officer Albert Belcher was insufficient in that respect. The plaintiff should have been allowed to depose Detective Bowden. However, there has been no showing of the necessity for taking the deposition of Detective Conkling.

Furthermore, the plaintiff has failed to offer, "in good faith, some factual predicate" for obtaining access to any alleged records of the Internal Affairs Division of the New York City Police Department relating to this accident ( People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 550; see, Civil Rights Law § 50-a; Zarn v. City of New York, 198 A.D.2d 220; Becker v. City of New York, 162 A.D.2d 488).

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


Summaries of

Alcamo v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 3, 1998
253 A.D.2d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Alcamo v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:MILAGROS ALCAMO, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of JOSEPH…

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

Date published: Aug 3, 1998

Citations

253 A.D.2d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
676 N.Y.S.2d 230

Citing Cases

Williams v. City of N.Y

Green expressly identified Lugo as a witness. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff should be allowed to…

Sanchez v. Village of Ossining

The plaintiff did not oppose those branches of the cross motion in the Supreme Court, nor does he do so on…