From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Filpo v. Linemaster Switch Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 17, 1997
244 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

November 17, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In order to show that additional depositions are necessary, the moving party must demonstrate that (1) the representative already deposed had insufficient knowledge or otherwise provided inadequate information, and (2) there is a substantial likelihood that the person or persons sought for depositions can supply information that is material and necessary to the prosecution of the case ( see, Uvaydova v. New York Tel. Co., 226 A.D.2d 626; Carter v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 225 A.D.2d 512; Zollner v. City of New York, 204 A.D.2d 626). Since the third-party plaintiff failed to establish these elements, the Supreme Court properly denied its motion.

Rosenblatt, J. P., O'Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Filpo v. Linemaster Switch Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 17, 1997
244 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Filpo v. Linemaster Switch Corp.

Case Details

Full title:JOSE FILPO, Plaintiff, v. LINEMASTER SWITCH CORP., Defendant and…

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

Date published: Nov 17, 1997

Citations

244 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
664 N.Y.S.2d 119

Citing Cases

Sammy v. First Am. Title Ins. Co. of N.Y.

, she failed to show that the information sought is "material and necessary in the prosecution . . . of [her]…

Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, v. Occidental Gems, Inc.

Moreover, every request for discovery must be gauged in the context of the particular case in which it is…