McKay v Khabele

McKay v Khabele 2007 NY Slip Op 09540 [46 AD3d 258] December 4, 2007 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Barbara McKay, Appellant,
v
Dineo Khabele, M.D., et al., Respondents.

—[*1] Roura & Melamed, New York City (Matthew R. Kreinces of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Cheryl Payer of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered October 17, 2006, which, to the extent appealed as limited by the briefs, limited plaintiff's further depositions of defendant Khabele and nonparty Dr. Gloria Huang, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court did not act improvidently in limiting further depositions of Khabele and Huang to questions related to their notes in newly produced documents and refusing to direct them to answer all questions to which objections had been raised at their initial depositions. Plaintiff failed to justify adequately a broader scope of inquiry or to demonstrate that the limitations deprived them of deposition testimony relevant and necessary for preparation for trial (see Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v Occidental Gems, Inc., 41 AD3d 362 [2007]; Smukler v 12 Lofts Realty, 178 AD2d 125 [1991]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Buckley and Sweeny, JJ.