Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Thomas P. GEHEN, Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Consolidated Rail Corporation, a/k/a Conrail And Conrail, Inc., Defendants-Appellants-Respondents.
Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in ordering defendants to “show a good faith effort” to produce four former employees for depositions in Erie County (see, MS Partnership v. Wal-Mart Stores, 273 A.D.2d 858, 858-859, 709 N.Y.S.2d 290). The court erred, however, in further ordering defendants to pay plaintiff's counsel's costs and plaintiff's expenses in procuring the testimony. Any expenses incurred by a party in connection with discovery should be paid by the party incurring the expenses and may be taxed as disbursements by the party who ultimately prevails (see, Morgan v. Dell Publ. Co., 185 A.D.2d 876, 878, 586 N.Y.S.2d 1004). In the interest of judicial economy, we treat this motion to compel under CPLR 3124 as a motion for permission to order the examination of out-of-State witnesses under CPLR 3113(a)(2) and grant that relief together with reasonable expenses, excluding attorney's fees to be recovered as taxable disbursements at the time of entry of the final judgment in the event that plaintiff prevails herein. We therefore modify the order by vacating the third and fourth ordering paragraphs and granting plaintiff permission to order the examination of out-of-State witnesses under CPLR 3113(a)(2) together with reasonable expenses, excluding attorney's fees, to be recoverable as taxable disbursements at the time of entry of the final judgment in the event that plaintiff prevails herein.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 21, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)