Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Kuriakose v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department

 February 14, 2019, Decided ; February 14, 2019, Entered

8401N, 162579/15

Opinion

 [*502] Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Adam Silvera, J.), entered March 27, 2018, which, inter alia, in this action for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff pedestrian was struck by an unidentified vehicle, directed plaintiff to respond to interrogatories, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court's discovery order was a provident exercise of discretion, despite the fact that a prior court had denied plaintiff's motion for a protective order seeking a video deposition (see generally Daniels v City of New York, 291 AD2d 260, 737 NYS2d 598 [1st Dept 2002]). The court providently fashioned a remedy tailored to the discovery issue at hand where plaintiff currently lives in India and expresses to have difficulties, both physical and financial, in traveling here for a deposition (see e.g. Fielding v Klein Dept. Stores, 44 AD2d 668, 354 NYS2d 438 [1st Dept 1974]). Concur—Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Oing, Moulton, JJ.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

169 A.D.3d 502 *; 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1141 **; 2019 NY Slip Op 01145 ***; 2019 WL 611349

 [***1]  Thomas Kuriakose, Respondent, v Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Appellant.

CORE TERMS

deposition, discovery