Habib v Best Yet Mkt. of Hicksville, Inc.

Habib v Best Yet Mkt. of Hicksville, Inc. 2012 NY Slip Op 09029 Decided on December 26, 2012 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 26, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
L. PRISCILLA HALL
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
2011-09538
(Index No. 11214/09)

[*1]Nadia Habib, et al., appellants,

v

Best Yet Market of Hicksville, Inc., et al., defendants-respondents, et al., Roy Mahon, etc., nonparty-respondent.




Morrison & Wagner, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Eric H. Morrison of
counsel), for appellants.
Martyn, Toher & Martyn, Mineola, N.Y. (Thomas M. Martyn
of counsel), for defendants-
respondents.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y.
(Richard Dearing and Oren L. Zeve of
counsel; Scott Weingart on the brief), for
nonparty-respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Marano, J.), dated August 3, 2011, which denied their motion to compel the deposition of a nonparty witness and to extend their time to file a motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to extend the time within which to make a posttrial motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404 (see CPLR 4405; Brzozowy v ELRAC, Inc., 39 AD3d 451). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to compel the deposition of a nonparty witness, the Justice who presided over the trial in this case. Even if the plaintiffs made a sufficient showing as to relevancy, they did not demonstrate that the information they sought could not be obtained from other sources (see Cotton v Cotton, 91 AD3d 697, 699; Kooper v Kooper 74 AD3d 6).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., DICKERSON, HALL and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court