From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dietz & Associates, LLC v. Essar Shipping Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 3, 2003
306 A.D.2d 28 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

1305N

June 3, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered February 10, 2003, which, in an action to recover a broker's commissions, inter alia, denied defendants-appellants' motion to compel plaintiffs brokers' deposition by a witness with knowledge of the reasons why the person plaintiffs initially produced for deposition left their employ, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

David H. Fromm, for plaintiffs-respondents.

John P. Vayda, for defendants-appellants.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Lerner, Friedman, JJ.


Defendants' suspicion that plaintiffs fired the employee because he admitted at his deposition that he lacked authority from any party to the transaction to act as a broker, or because of his habit of engaging in work without authority, is speculation that does not warrant discovery.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Dietz & Associates, LLC v. Essar Shipping Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 3, 2003
306 A.D.2d 28 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Dietz & Associates, LLC v. Essar Shipping Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:DIETZ ASSOCIATES, LLC, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. ESSAR SHIPPING…

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

Date published: Jun 3, 2003

Citations

306 A.D.2d 28 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
759 N.Y.S.2d 666

Citing Cases

City Nat'l Bank v. Morelli Ratner, P.C.

The Morelli Parties take the position that they are entitled to this discovery because they may be able to…