Walden Marine, Inc. v. Walden
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to stay defendants’ depositions until completion of a related criminal case (see, CPLR 2201). Defendants contend that they will be irreparably harmed if the depositions go forward because the jury in the present action will be permitted to draw a negative inference from their assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination (see, Marine Midland Bank v Russo Produce Co., 50 NY2d 31, 42-43). It is well settled, however, that the fact that a “witness may invoke the privilege against…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Marine Midland Bank v. John E. Russo Produce Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Steinbrecher v. WapnickNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
- State v. Carey Resources, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Britt v. International Bus Services, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Stuart v. TomasinoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Spencer v. City of BuffaloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019