Narrative Opinion Summary
In an appeal concerning a personal injury case, the plaintiff sought to compel Staley Elevator Co. to produce additional witnesses for deposition and certain documents. The Supreme Court of Queens County, presided by Judge Golar, denied the plaintiff's motion on April 18, 1996. The order was affirmed with costs. The court found that the plaintiff's counsel did not submit the required affirmation demonstrating a good faith effort to resolve the disclosure dispute, as mandated by 22 NYCRR 202.7(a)(2). Consequently, the request to compel document production was properly denied, referencing precedents such as Koelbl v. Harvey and Eaton v. Chahal. Additionally, the court ruled against compelling the production of more witnesses, noting that the plaintiff failed to adequately justify the need for further depositions, citing cases like Defina v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co. and Colicchio v. City of New York. Judges Miller, Thompson, Joy, and Luciano concurred with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Lower Court's Decision with Costssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision to deny the plaintiff's motion, including the imposition of costs.
Reasoning: The order was affirmed with costs.
Denial of Motion to Compel Witness Depositionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient justification for the need to depose additional witnesses, leading to the denial of their motion.
Reasoning: Additionally, the court ruled against compelling the production of more witnesses, noting that the plaintiff failed to adequately justify the need for further depositions.
Disclosure Dispute Resolution Requirement under 22 NYCRR 202.7(a)(2)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the plaintiff's motion to compel document production because the plaintiff's counsel failed to submit an affirmation of a good faith effort to resolve the disclosure dispute.
Reasoning: The court found that the plaintiff's counsel did not submit the required affirmation demonstrating a good faith effort to resolve the disclosure dispute, as mandated by 22 NYCRR 202.7(a)(2).