ROMERO v. Staley Elevator Co., Inc., Respondent.

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Julio ROMERO, Appellant, v. Robert KORN, etc., et al., Defendants, Staley Elevator Co., Inc., Respondent.

Decided: February 24, 1997

Before MILLER, J.P., and THOMPSON, JOY and LUCIANO, JJ. John Marshall, Plainview, for appellant. Gregory C. Poulos, Brooklyn, for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated April 18, 1996, which denied his motion to compel the defendant Staley Elevator Co. to produce additional witnesses for deposition and to compel that defendant to produce certain documents.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 Because the plaintiff's counsel failed to provide the required affirmation of a good faith effort to resolve the disclosure dispute (see, 22 NYCRR 202.7[a][2] ), the court properly denied the plaintiff's motion insofar as it sought to compel the defendant Staley Elevator Co. (hereinafter Staley) to produce certain documents (see, Koelbl v. Harvey, 176 A.D.2d 1040, 575 N.Y.S.2d 189;  Eaton v. Chahal, 146 Misc.2d 977, 982-983, 553 N.Y.S.2d 642).   Moreover, the court properly denied the plaintiff's motion insofar as it sought to compel Staley to produce additional witnesses for deposition since the plaintiff failed to make a detailed showing of the necessity for taking further depositions (Defina v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 217 A.D.2d 681, 682, 630 N.Y.S.2d 533;  Colicchio v. City of New York, 181 A.D.2d 528, 529, 581 N.Y.S.2d 36).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Copied to clipboard