Gelda v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to compel the defendant to produce additional employees for depositions. A corporation has the right to designate, in the first instance, which of its employees will appear for a deposition (see Trueforge Global Mach. Corp. v Viraj Group, 84 AD3d 938, 939 [2011]; Aronson v Im, 81 AD3d 577 [2011]; Sladowski-Casolaro v World Championship Wrestling, Inc., 47 AD3d 803 [2008]). The plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating that the defendant’s employee who was…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Conte v. County of NassauAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Sladowski-Casolaro v. World Championship Wrestling, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Trueforge Global Machinery Corp. v. Viraj GroupAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Thristino v. County of SuffolkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Aronson v. ImAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
3Cited by1 opinion
- Monti v. ShawAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020