From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doherty v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 22, 2005
24 A.D.3d 275 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

7422N, 7423N.

December 22, 2005.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul A. Victor, J.), entered January 13, 2005, which granted plaintiff's motion for a protective order setting aside the notice of plaintiff's deposition and directing that the deposition take place in Ireland, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about April 25, 2005, denying defendant's motion for a stay of the January 13, 2005 order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


We perceive no abuse of the motion court's broad discretion to supervise discovery ( see Ulico Cas. Co. v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman Dicker, 1 AD3d 223, 224). Plaintiff was on three occasions denied the necessary travel visa for appearance at his court-ordered New York deposition and was directed in the appealed order to bear the costs of defendant's travel-related expenses ( cf. Farrakhan v. N.Y.P. Holdings, 226 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 803).


Summaries of

Doherty v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 22, 2005
24 A.D.3d 275 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Doherty v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:DAMIEN DOHERTY, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants, and…

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

Date published: Dec 22, 2005

Citations

24 A.D.3d 275 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
808 N.Y.S.2d 625

Citing Cases

Williams v. Suttle

Although such undue hardship has been found by the courts where a party has demonstrated that they are…

Koch v. Sheresky, Aronson Mayefsky, LLP

Courts have often directed the deposition of a party by video-conference, where the party had difficulty…