From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Staten Island-Arlington, Inc. v. Wilpon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 23, 1989
154 A.D.2d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

October 23, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing to vacate the plaintiff's notices to take the appellants' depositions upon the ground that criminal charges are pending against them with respect to the same subject matter which is involved in this action (see, Bucci v Lydon, 116 A.D.2d 520, 521). The appellants are required to appear and may invoke their privilege against self-incrimination with respect to specific questions (see, Flushing Natl. Bank v Transamerica Ins. Co., 135 A.D.2d 486; State of New York v Carey Resources, 97 A.D.2d 508). We note that the issue of whether this action should be stayed pending the resolution of the criminal proceedings (see, DeSiervi v Liverzani, 136 A.D.2d 527) is not before us. Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Staten Island-Arlington, Inc. v. Wilpon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 23, 1989
154 A.D.2d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Staten Island-Arlington, Inc. v. Wilpon

Case Details

Full title:STATEN ISLAND-ARLINGTON, INC., Respondent, v. KENNETH I. WILPON et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 23, 1989

Citations

154 A.D.2d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
546 N.Y.S.2d 416

Citing Cases

Walden Marine, Inc. v. Walden

Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to stay defendants' depositions until completion of a…

Stolowski v. 234 E. 178th St. LLC

Defendants contend that they will be irreparably harmed if the depositions go forward because the jury in the…