Matter of Rose F. Albarino

Annotate this Case
Matter of Albarino 2006 NY Slip Op 01796 [27 AD3d 556] March 14, 2006 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, May 17, 2006

In the Matter of the Estate of Rose F. Albarino, Deceased. Robert Albarino, Respondent; Roxanne Kelly, Appellant.

—[*1]

In a proceeding for a judicial accounting, the objectant appeals from (1) an order of the Surrogate's Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, S.), dated August 19, 2004, which denied her motion for a protective order to permit her to be deposed in a court-ordered deposition by telephone from her home in Florida, (2) an order of the same court dated December 29, 2004, which denied her motion, in effect, for leave to renew, and (3) an order of the same court also dated December 29, 2004, which granted the respondent's motion to dismiss her objections to the accounting unless she appeared for deposition.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated December 29, 2004 denying the motion, in effect, for leave to renew, is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated August 19, 2004 and the order dated December 29, 2004 dismissing the objections are affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent payable by the appellant pro se.

The appellant failed to demonstrate undue hardship to justify a protective order to [*2]permit her to be deposed in a court-ordered deposition by telephone from her home in Florida (see Rodriguez v Infinity Ins. Co., 283 AD2d 969, 970 [2001]; Farrakhan v N.Y.P. Holdings, 226 AD2d 133, 136 [1996]; cf. Rogovin v Rogovin, 3 AD3d 352, 353 [2004]; Hoffman v Kraus, 260 AD2d 435, 437 [1999]).

The Surrogate's Court's dismissal of the appellant's objections unless she complied with court-ordered discovery was a proper exercise of its discretion (see Frias v Fortini, 240 AD2d 467 [1997]; Vandelli v Vandelli, 189 AD2d 871, 872 [1993]). Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Covello, JJ., concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.