From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

FIORE v. SUN BANK OF BAL HARBOUR

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 6, 1977
55 A.D.2d 874 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Opinion

January 6, 1977


Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 30, 1976, unanimously reversed, in the exercise of discretion, and defendants-respondents' motion for a protective order denied, with $40 costs and disbursements to appellant. The action is for brokerage commissions. Plaintiff-appellant noticed examination of defendants here. Defendants moved for a protective order. Special Term granted the application on the basis of an affidavit by counsel claiming conclusorily, without stating a basis therefor, that it would be a hardship for his clients to come here to be examined. "Defendant failed to demonstrate a hardship. Without such a showing, the nonresidence of defendant does not preclude an examination here. (Gazerwitz v Adrian, 28 A.D.2d 556, 557.)" (Santamaria v Walt Disney World, 51 A.D.2d 959, 960.) Defendants-respondents shall appear accordingly for examination on 15 days' notice or, if defendants so elect, the examination shall proceed in Florida provided that defendants pay all expenses in connection therewith.

Concur — Stevens, P.J., Markewich, Murphy, Birns and Nunez, JJ.


Summaries of

FIORE v. SUN BANK OF BAL HARBOUR

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 6, 1977
55 A.D.2d 874 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)
Case details for

FIORE v. SUN BANK OF BAL HARBOUR

Case Details

Full title:HUGH FIORE, Appellant, v. SUN BANK OF BAL HARBOUR, N.A., et al.…

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

Date published: Jan 6, 1977

Citations

55 A.D.2d 874 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Citing Cases

Oneto v. Hotel Waldorf-Astoria Corp.

Exact fairness in this kind of a situation is not easy to achieve. (Cf. Gobhai v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 62…