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.
Connell FRIEL, et al., respondents, v. Charles E. PAPA, et al., appellants.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation and unlawful termination in violation of Labor Law § 740, the defendants appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, J.), dated June 20, 2007, which granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel the defendant William Murphy to appear for a deposition, and denied their cross motion for a protective order vacating the notices to take depositions of Mary Lou Pinto and Steven Donnelly, and (2) an order of the same court dated October 31, 2007, which denied their motion for leave to reargue.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated October 31, 2007 is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated June 20, 2007, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs.
Pursuant to CPLR 3101(a), “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” is required. The phrase “material and necessary” should be “interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason” (Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406, 288 N.Y.S.2d 449, 235 N.E.2d 430; see Andon v. 302-304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 N.Y.2d 740, 746, 709 N.Y.S.2d 873, 731 N.E.2d 589; Auerbach v. Klein, 30 A.D.3d 451, 451-452, 816 N.Y.S.2d 376).
Here, the defendants contend that the Supreme Court erred in compelling deposition testimony and in denying a protective order. However, the plaintiffs demonstrated that the depositions are reasonably calculated to result in the disclosure of facts necessary to prosecute their case (see Beckles v. Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr., 36 A.D.3d 733, 830 N.Y.S.2d 203; Vyas v. Campbell, 4 A.D.3d 417, 418, 771 N.Y.S.2d 375; Crazytown Furniture v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 150 A.D.2d 420, 421, 541 N.Y.S.2d 30).
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: November 18, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)