Opinion
June 16, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.).
The motion court appropriately exercised its broad discretion in matters pertaining to discovery ( see, Kamhi v. Dependable Delivery Serv., 234 A.D.2d 34) by directing the limited deposition of defendant's president. Plaintiff demonstrated in support of its request to depose defendant's president that less highly placed corporate officers had insufficient knowledge of relevant matters, and we note in this connection that defendant's president's bare claim of ignorance as to those matters can hardly be taken as conclusive as to the efficacy of deposing him ( compare, Matter of Lange v. Roman Catholic Diocese, 245 A.D.2d 118).
Concur — Milonas, J. P., Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.