Opinion
September 30, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.).
To the extent leave to appeal to this Court is required herein, we grant such leave. We remand inasmuch as the motion court failed to make rulings on the propriety of particular deposition questions that defendant did not allow its witness to answer and of plaintiff's demands that defendant produce certain documents for inspection and certain other witnesses for deposition ( see, White v. Martins, 100 A.D.2d 805; Nickerson v. Volt Delta Resources, 199 A.D.2d 212; cf., Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A. v. Insurance Co., 239 A.D.2d 255). However, the motion court did properly exercise its discretion in refusing to place the case on the calendar where, assuming defendant's objections at the deposition were unreasonable, it does not appear that the case would have been ready for trial had such objections not been made, and no showing is made that such unreadiness is due to other reasons beyond plaintiff's control ( 22 NYCRR 202.21). Absent such a showing, plaintiff's illness is relevant to an application for a preference after, not before, disclosure is completed.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.