Battaglia v Town of Bethlehem
Annotate this CaseDecided on February 14, 2006
Supreme Court, Albany County
Anthony A. Battaglia, Individually and as President of BATTAGLIA FRUIT & PRODUCE CO., INC., CALIFORNIA PRODUCE CO., INC. and CALIFORNIA PRODUCE RETAIL, a/k/a CALIFORNIA MARKETPLACE, Plaintiffs,
against
The Town of Bethlehem, its officers, agents, servants, and/or employees, Defendant.
4690-01
CADE & SAUNDERS
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
(Alan M. Blumenkopf, Esq. of Counsel)
4 Pine Street
Albany, New York 12207
PENNOCK, BREEDLOVE & NOLL, LL
Attorneys for Defendant
(John H. Pennock, Jr., Esq. of Counsel)
1407 Rt. 9 North
Clifton Park, New York 12065
Thomas J. McNamara, J.
Defendant has moved for an order quashing two non-party witness subpoenas
which were served after the Court ordered time to complete discovery had expired and while a
motion for summary judgment was pending. While the instant motion was brought by order to
show cause, it did not include a stay of the scheduled depositions. There is also no indication that
defendant [*2]notified the witnesses that their examination was
stayed as required by CPLR R 3106 (b). Plaintiffs conducted the deposition of one of the
witnesses without defendant's counsel present. The other witness failed to appear.
CPLR R 3214 (b) provides that service of a motion for summary judgment stays all disclosure until the motion is decided unless the court orders otherwise. While plaintiffs' attorneys informed the Court that the depositions were needed to oppose the motion for summary judgment and requested an adjournment of the motion, plaintiffs did not specifically request, nor did they obtain an order relieving them of the automatic stay. It was therefore improper to conduct the deposition.
The circumstances indicate that the depositions may be warranted. Plaintiffs' attorney's letter request for an adjournment to the Court indicates that one of the witnesses unexpectedly refused to supply an affidavit in fear of repercussions from the Town. Such fact warrants continuation of discovery after the time to complete discovery set by order. Moreover, even though the witnesses have not been disclosed as required by defendant's combined demands, defendant has not shown any prejudice caused by such failure. However, the notices to take depositions of non-party witnesses failed to set forth the circumstances or reasons warranting the depositions as required by CPLR § 3101 (a) (4). The were also served less than 20 days before the scheduled depositions, in violation of CPLR R 3106 (b).
Accordingly, the motion to quash the subpoenas is hereby granted without prejudice to service of proper notice and subpoenas. The deposition held in violation of the stay shall be deemed a nullity.
This memorandum shall constitute both the decision and the order of the Court. All papers,
including this decision and order, are being returned to counsel for defendant. The signing of this
decision and order shall not constitute entry or filing under CPLR 2220. Counsel is not relieved
from the applicable provisions of that section relating to filing, entry and notice of entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED!
________________________________
Dated: February 14, 2006Thomas J. McNamara
Albany, New YorkActing Supreme Court Justice
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.