From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gelda v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 29, 2011
89 A.D.3d 1058 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-11-29

Elaine GELDA, et al., appellants, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., respondent.

Richard M. Kenny, New York, N.Y. (Dara L. Warren of counsel), for appellants. Gallagher, Walker, Bianco & Plastaras, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert J. Walker and Ivonne Estevez–Sarkinen of counsel), for respondent.


Richard M. Kenny, New York, N.Y. (Dara L. Warren of counsel), for appellants. Gallagher, Walker, Bianco & Plastaras, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert J. Walker and Ivonne Estevez–Sarkinen of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), entered April 25, *612 2011, as denied that branch of their motion which was to compel the defendant to produce additional employees for depositions.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to compel the defendant to produce additional employees for depositions. A corporation has the right to designate, in the first instance, which of its employees will appear for a deposition ( see Trueforge Global Mach. Corp. v. Viraj Group, 84 A.D.3d 938, 939, 923 N.Y.S.2d 146; Aronson v. Im, 81 A.D.3d 577, 915 N.Y.S.2d 639; Sladowski–Casolaro v. World Championship Wrestling, Inc., 47 A.D.3d 803, 850 N.Y.S.2d 176). The plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating that the defendant's employee who was already deposed had insufficient knowledge or was otherwise inadequate, and that there was a substantial likelihood that the additional employees of the defendant sought for depositions possessed information that was material and necessary to the prosecution of the action ( see Conte v. County of Nassau, 87 A.D.3d 559, 560, 929 N.Y.S.2d 742; Thristino v. County of Suffolk, 78 A.D.3d 927, 927–928, 910 N.Y.S.2d 664; Sladowski–Casolaro v. World Championship Wrestling, Inc., 47 A.D.3d at 803–804, 850 N.Y.S.2d 176).

SKELOS, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, BELEN, LOTT and ROMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gelda v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 29, 2011
89 A.D.3d 1058 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Gelda v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Elaine GELDA, et al., appellants, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., respondent.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 29, 2011

Citations

89 A.D.3d 1058 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8722
933 N.Y.S.2d 611

Citing Cases

Perez v. City of N.Y.

It is well settled that once a party has deposed a defendant's witness, depositions of additional witness…

Monti v. Shaw

The defendants appeal.A corporate entity has the right to designate the employee who will be deposed…