Summary
upholding discovery order as a "provident exercise of discretion"
Summary of this case from C.C. v. D.D.Opinion
8401N Index 162579/15
02-14-2019
Thomas KURIAKOSE, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, Defendant–Appellant.
Kornfeld, Rew, Newman & Simeone, Suffern (William S. Badura of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Stephen B. Kaufman, P.C., Bronx (John V. Decolator of counsel), for respondent.
Kornfeld, Rew, Newman & Simeone, Suffern (William S. Badura of counsel), for appellant.
Law Office of Stephen B. Kaufman, P.C., Bronx (John V. Decolator of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Oing, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Adam Silvera, J.), entered March 27, 2018, which, inter alia, in this action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff pedestrian was struck by an unidentified vehicle, directed plaintiff to respond to interrogatories, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court's discovery order was a provident exercise of discretion, despite the fact that a prior court had denied plaintiff's motion for a protective order seeking a video deposition (see generally Daniels v. City of New York , 291 A.D.2d 260, 737 N.Y.S.2d 598 [1st Dept. 2002] ). The court providently fashioned a remedy tailored to the discovery issue at hand where plaintiff currently lives in India and expresses to have difficulties, both physical and financial, in traveling here for a deposition (see e.g. Fielding v. S. Klein Dept. Stores , 44 A.D.2d 668, 354 N.Y.S.2d 438 [1st Dept. 1974] ).