From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gatta v. Makita U.S.A

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 17, 1997
244 A.D.2d 457 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

November 17, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the defendants' motion is denied.

Prior to the plaintiff's deposition before a stenographer, the defendants moved, inter alia, to compel him to demonstrate how he incurred the injuries alleged in the complaint. The court granted the motion.

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the motion for a demonstration, as the plaintiff can verbally explain, without demonstrating by use of the subject tools, how he was injured. Moreover, the stenographer would not be able to adequately transcribe such a demonstration. Any such attempt would necessarily involve the stenographer's subjective interpretation and perception of the demonstration.

Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gatta v. Makita U.S.A

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 17, 1997
244 A.D.2d 457 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Gatta v. Makita U.S.A

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL GATTA, Appellant, v. MAKITA U.S.A., INC., et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Nov 17, 1997

Citations

244 A.D.2d 457 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
664 N.Y.S.2d 352

Citing Cases

Grebyonkin v. 2301 Ocean Ave. Owners Corp.

The demonstration or reenactment of an accident during discovery is not generally contemplated under the CPLR…