From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Prozeralik v. Capital Cities Communications

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 1986
124 A.D.2d 1033 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

November 10, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Niagara County, Gossel, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, J.


Order insofar as appealed from unanimously modified on the law, and as modified, affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff asserts that he was defamed by defendant's false statement, made during its news broadcasts, that he was the victim of a beating on May 6, 1982 and that he was being investigated by the FBI for possibly owing money to organized crime figures. Defendant in its answer asserted that its broadcast was based on information from an FBI agent. Plaintiff sought to examine the FBI agent but the Justice Department refused to produce him without the parties first stipulating to certain limitations on the scope of the examination. Defendant refused to enter into the stipulation. Plaintiff thereafter sought a protective order limiting the scope of the examination in accordance with the limits of the stipulation. Defendant opposed the motion on the ground that it improperly restricted the scope of discovery. Special Term granted plaintiff's motion and limited the deposition as requested. In its fourth decretal paragraph the court provided that the United States Attorney present at the disposition would in his or her sole discretion determine if questions and responses were within the scope of the examination. We delete that paragraph. Obviously, the United States Attorney present may object to questions posed to the agent subject, of course, to judicial review and determination. Additionally, Special Term unduly restricted the examination by limiting it to the contact between the agent and defendant's employees on May 7, 1982. Special Term's second decretal paragraph is, therefore, modified to provide for questioning of the FBI agent as to past practices in confirming information for defendant's employees, excepting the specifics of any underlying criminal investigation.

To insure the orderly progress of the deposition, it should be supervised in accordance with CPLR 3104 (a).


Summaries of

Prozeralik v. Capital Cities Communications

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 10, 1986
124 A.D.2d 1033 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Prozeralik v. Capital Cities Communications

Case Details

Full title:JOHN PROZERALIK, Respondent, v. CAPITAL CITIES COMMUNICATIONS, INC.…

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

Date published: Nov 10, 1986

Citations

124 A.D.2d 1033 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)