From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bovsun v. Sanperi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 1985
112 A.D.2d 125 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

July 1, 1985

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


Order affirmed, with costs.

Defendants have wholly failed to show that any "unusual and unanticipated conditions" have developed so as to justify further depositions of the plaintiffs (22 NYCRR 675.7; see, Holbin v Port Auth., 88 A.D.2d 990; Kirk v. Blum, 79 A.D.2d 700). The record clearly indicates that the discovery which has already been conducted has given defendants a full and fair opportunity to gather information on issues such as the "zone of danger" and the cause and extent of the psychic injuries sustained by plaintiffs. Indeed, the fact that defendants had plaintiffs undergo psychiatric examinations in 1978 belies their contention that they lack information necessary to defend the instant claims. As such, we find that Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motions to conduct further discovery and to keep the case off the Trial Calendar. Bracken, J.P., O'Connor, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bovsun v. Sanperi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 1985
112 A.D.2d 125 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Bovsun v. Sanperi

Case Details

Full title:JACK E. BOVSUN et al., Respondents, v. GARY T. SANPERI et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Jul 1, 1985

Citations

112 A.D.2d 125 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Gershon v. South Nassau Communities Hospital

Additionally, the record indicates that the plaintiff unreasonably sought to conduct discovery throughout the…