Opinion
2019–02301 Index No. 503396/16
07-01-2020
Louis GRANDELLI, etc., et al., Respondents, v. HOPE STREET HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants (and a third-Party action).
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP (Joseph P. Wodarski, John D. Morio, and Joseph Leathem Leahy of counsel), for appellants. Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf, New York, N.Y. (Richard M. Steigman of counsel), for respondents. Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, LLC, White Plains, N.Y. (Ezra Alter of counsel), for defendant Warner Electric Europe SAS.
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP (Joseph P. Wodarski, John D. Morio, and Joseph Leathem Leahy of counsel), for appellants.
Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf, New York, N.Y. (Richard M. Steigman of counsel), for respondents.
Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, LLC, White Plains, N.Y. (Ezra Alter of counsel), for defendant Warner Electric Europe SAS.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. This action seeks to recover damages for the wrongful death of the plaintiffs' decedent arising from an elevator malfunction. The owner of the residential apartment building where the elevator was located is the defendant Hope Street Holdings, LLC (hereinafter Hope Street), and the property management company for that building is the defendant Goose Property Management, LLC (hereinafter Goose Property, and together with Hope Street, the defendants). The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3103 for a protective order, to preclude the deposition of a co-owner of Hope Street, after the superintendent of construction for the building was deposed on behalf of Hope Street, and the owner of Goose Property was deposed on behalf of Goose Property.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants' motion for a protective order. The plaintiffs demonstrated that the representatives produced by the defendants did not have sufficient knowledge about the events giving rise to the complaint, and that there was a substantial likelihood that the witness whom the plaintiffs sought to depose possessed information which was material and necessary to the prosecution of this action (see Trueforge Global Mach. Corp. v. Viraj Group , 84 A.D.3d 938, 940, 923 N.Y.S.2d 146 ).
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., AUSTIN, HINDS–RADIX and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.