From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

K.S. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 2008
56 A.D.3d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2007-08308.

November 12, 2008.

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, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated July 9, 2007, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants City of New York, Mercy First, formerly known as Angel Guardian, Molly Bukovec, and Christine Brittle which was to limit the anticipated deposition testimony of the defendant Annette Joseph.

Harnick Harnick, (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac De Cicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac and Michael H. Zhu], of counsel) for appellants.

Biederman, Reif, Hoenig Ruff, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Peter W. Beadle of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Fisher, J.P., Covello, McCarthy and Leventhal, JJ.


Ordered that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted ( see CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was to limit the anticipated deposition testimony of the defendant Annette Joseph is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the appointment of a referee to supervise the anticipated deposition ( see CPLR 3104 [a]) in accordance herewith.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in limiting the anticipated deposition testimony of Annette Joseph. The court should not have ruled on the propriety of deposition questions which had not yet been asked, inasmuch as rulings on the propriety of such questions should be made only after a specific question has been asked and its answer refused ( see Eliali v Aztec Metal Maintenance Corp., 287 AD2d 682; Tardibuono v County of Nassau, 181 AD2d 879, 881). However, as conceded by the appellants, the Supreme Court properly determined that the appointment of a referee to supervise the anticipated deposition of Ms. Joseph is warranted ( see CPLR 3104 [a]). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the appointment of a referee to supervise the anticipated deposition.


Summaries of

K.S. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 2008
56 A.D.3d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

K.S. v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:K.S. et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents, et al.…

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

Date published: Nov 12, 2008

Citations

56 A.D.3d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 8710
867 N.Y.S.2d 516

Citing Cases

Slapo v. Winthrop Univ. Hosp.

For the purpose of pretrial examination, a nonparty treating physician who is, or is deemed to be, an…

Robles v. 635 Owner LLC

Since the court is requiring a new notice to admit, if any, to which W5 Group will respond anew, the court…