Opinion
October 14, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.).
Third-party defendant claims that insofar as the motion court's order directs that the witness it had produced under subpoena while still a nonparty now testify as to all relevant matters, rather than those limited to the third-party notice and subpoena, its effect is to grant third-party plaintiff a priority in the order of pretrial depositions and to deny third-party defendant its right to designate the deponent in the first instance. If this be the effect, there are justifying special circumstances, namely, the uncertain nature of the affiliation between third-party defendant and the defendant that served the nonparty deposition subpoena, third-party defendant's stipulation to continue the deponent's deposition after it had become aware of the filing of the third-party complaint, and third-party defendant's failure to serve third-party plaintiff with a deposition notice until after the latter had made the instant motion for sanctions. To the extent third-party defendant seeks to appeal rulings on its objections at the deposition, such rulings are not appealable as of right, and we decline to grant leave to appeal ( see, Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A. v. Insurance Co., 239 A.D.2d 255). We have considered third-party defendant's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Wallach, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.