From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lazarevic v. Kaminski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 8, 1991
169 A.D.2d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

January 8, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).


In the circumstances disclosed by this record, and particularly in light of the fact that a special master has recommended that Harris (in addition to two other employees) be deposed, we find it to have been an abuse of discretion to deny the relief sought. In this action by plaintiff artist to recover for physical damage suffered by his sculpture allegedly in the course of its shipment to an exhibition site, Robert Wissler, a moving man employed by Auer's, testified at his deposition that Harris was the driver-foreman in charge at the time of the move, and could well have been an eyewitness with sole direct knowledge of the critical incident. Wissler himself denied any recollection of the event. Thus we cannot agree with the motion court that Harris' deposition would in any significant way be "duplicative" of the discovery already had in this case. On the contrary, it may well be the only mechanism by which the actual facts may be established.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Lazarevic v. Kaminski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 8, 1991
169 A.D.2d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Lazarevic v. Kaminski

Case Details

Full title:MILO LAZAREVIC, Appellant, v. KAREN R. KAMINSKI et al., as Coexecutrices…

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

Date published: Jan 8, 1991

Citations

169 A.D.2d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
564 N.Y.S.2d 145

Citing Cases

Colicchio v. City of New York

They have also received numerous documents from the City concerning the conditions of the roadway. The…