Flatiron-Williamsburg Prop. Group II LLC v Arpad Baksa Architect, P.C.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Flatiron-Williamsburg Prop. Group II LLC v Arpad Baksa Architect, P.C. 2018 NY Slip Op 32775(U) October 19, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 159693/2014 Judge: Lucy Billings Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/29/2018 09:10 AM NYSCEF ·•DOC. NO. 183 INDEX NO. 161543/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/29/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 46 --------------------------------~------x FLATIRON-WILLIAMSBURG PROPERTY GROUP II LLC, 21 JUDGE STREET LLC, and FLATIRON-WILLIAMSBURG PROPERTY GROUP I LLC, Plaintiffs - against ARPAD BAKSA ARCHITECT, P.C., and ARPAD BAKSA, Def endan·t s ---------------------------------------x ---------------------------------------x ARPAD BAKSA ARCHITECT, P.C., Third Party Plaintiff - against ARCHITECTURE WORK, P.C., METROPAN SYSTEMS, INC., VENDELAY ROOFING, AWAN CONTRACTING LLC, PLUMBING COMPANY, INC., A-PLUS MASONRY, INC., and LAVADA, INC. I Third Party Defendants ---------------------------------------x ---------------------------------------x ARPAD BAKSA ARCHITECT, P.C., Second Third Party Plaintiff - against VANDELAY BUILDING SERVICES INC., Second Third Party Defendant ---------------------------------------x flatiron .198 1 2 of 8 Index No. 159693/2014 [*FILED: 2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/29/2018 09:10 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 183 INDEX NO. 161543/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/29/2018 ---------------------------------------x ARPAD BAKSA ARCHITECT, P.C., Third Third Party Plaintiff - against COW BAY CONTRACTING INC., Third Third Party Defendant ---------------------------------------x DECISION AND ORDER LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C.: Plaintiffs move for a protective order (1) prohibiting defendants from further deposing two of plaintiff's witnesses whose depositions are still incomplete after lengthy questioning or, at minimum, limiting the remaining time of their depositions and (2) limiting the time of defendants' depositions of any further witnesses produced by plaintiffs. C.P.L.R. § 3103(a). Plaintiffs demonstrate that defendants have prolonged plaintiffs' depositions by asking repetitive, otherwise unnecessary, and irrelevant questions. See Kingsgate Assocs. v. Advest, Inc., 208 A.D.2d 356, 357 (1st Dep't 1994); Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 54 A.D.3d 386, 387 (2d Dep't 2008); Pucik v. Cornell Univ., 4 A.D.3d 686, 687 (3d Dep't 2004). The deposition of plaintiffs' witness Derek Konefal already has lasted three full days, and the deposition of their witness Steven Ancona almost two full days, flatiron. 198 2 3 of 8 [*FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/29/2018 09:10 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 183 I. INDEX NO. 161543/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/29/2018 DEFENDANTS' DEPOSITIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' WITNESSES For example, where documents produced by plaintiffs show that the deposition witness wrote or received the document, usually an email, plaintiffs stipulate that the witness wrote or received the document. Therefore it is unnecessary to question the witness on those rudimentary points, as has been defendants' constant routine. Dep't 1994). See Saieh v. Demetro, 201 A.D.2d 477, 477 (2d Nor is it necessary to ask the witness what the document states, as has been defendants' constant routine. document will be admissible or not. authenticated it. The Plaintiffs have If defendants will offer the document, they may seek to lay a foundation for the document's admissibility. If the document's contents are ambiguous, and the witness is the author, they may ask him to interpret the ambiguity. If .the document indicates there were attachments or documents related to it that were not produced, defendants may request the unproduced documents. Nothing more is needed. See Jones v. Maples, 257 A.D.2d 53, 56-57 (1st Dep't 1999). Once the witness has shown his lack of knowled~e about a subject, defendants' persistent further questioning about that subject serves no purpose. See Broadband Communications v. Home Box Off., 157 A.D.2d .479, 490 (1st Dep't 1990); Saieh v. Demetro, 201 A.D.2d at 477. In this action for breach of contract, negligence, .and architectural malpractice in defendants' design of plaintiffs' building that caused water damage to the building, plaintiffs' property manager Konefal established his limited flatiron.198 3 4 of 8 [*FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/29/2018 09:10 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 183 INDEX NO. 161543/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/29/2018 knowledge about the building's construction. He knew nothing about the bidding for the construction, the selection of the general contractor and subcontractors, the contracts, or who performed what work. Yet defendants used up the entire first day of his deposition questioning him uselessly about the construction. The only potentially useful questions asked who else might know about a subject. Konefal did assist Ancona in compiling a list of outstanding work at the construction's completion, but defendants did not focus their inquiry on this area of involvement. Their defense claimed that plaintiffs' attempts to cut costs and cut corners in their construction caused their damages, but, instead of focussing on that issue, defendants have sought to explore issues in every area of the construction, whether or not relevant to the water damage or cutting costs or corners. Defendants provide no explanation how their concerns about the building's fire alarms, locks, or graffiti, for example, or tenants' occupancy without a Certificate of Occupancy are relevant or reasonably calculated to yield evidence necessary or reasonably helpful or useful to defendants' defense. N.Y.3d 656, 661, 664 132 A.D.3d 616, 617 C.P.L.R. § 3101(a); Forman v. Henkin, 30 (2018); SNI/SI Networks LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, (1st Dep't 2015); Matter of Steam Pipe Explosion at 41st St. & Lexington Ave., 127 A.D.3d 554, 555 (1st Dep't 2015). flatiron. 198 4 5 of 8 [*FILED: 5] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/29/2018 09:10 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 183 II. INDEX NO. 161543/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/29/2018 STANDARDS FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER If defendants choose to waste their opportunities to depose plaintiffs' witnesses on pointless inquiries not focussed on actual _issues in the action, defenda~ts may do so, but not at the undue expense of all other parties. Defendants are entitled to depose adverse parties, but the court may limit defendants' quest for information when the inquiries seek irrelevant information, are patently excessive, or unreasonably burden or annoy other parties, even if unintentionally. C.P.L.R. § 3103(a); Jones v. Maples, 257 A.D.2d at 56; Kingsgate Assocs. v. Advest, Inc., 208 A.D.2d at 357;. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 54 A.D.3d at 387; Pucik v. Cornell Univ., 4 A.D.3d at 687. Defendants are not entitled to unlimited disclosure. v. Mukhtarzad, 103 A.D.3d 878, 879 (2d Dep't 2013). Suchorzepka Where depositions are the avenue of inquiry, the most practical means to keep the inquiry within reasonable bounds is to limit the I depositions' duration. Hutton v. Aesthetic Surgery, P.C., 161 A.D.3d 595, 596 (1st Dep't 2018); Nathel v. Nathel, 55 A.D.3d 434, 434 (1st Dep't 2008); Matter of Dier, 13 A.D.3d 150, 151 (1st Dep't 2004); Bielat v. Montrose: 249 A.D.2d 103, 103 (1st Dep't 1998). See Jones v. Maples, 257 A.D.2d at 56. After all, as defendants themselves emphasize, the purpose of disclosure is to accelerate, not prolong, disposition. Defendants may use the time allocated to them wisely or unwisely, without the court ruling on the permissibility of their questions. In a stipulated Status Conference Order dated May 23, 2018, flatiron.198 5 6 of 8 [*FILED: 6] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/29/2018 09:10 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 183 INDEX NO. 161543/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/29/2018 plaintiffs already stipulated to produce Konefal for a fourth day of his deposition. The court will not now infringe on that stipulation and order, nor otherwise prohibit depositions of plaintiffs. Nevertheless, defendants have established a track record of wasting their multiple opportunities to depose plaintiffs. The court is giving defendants a further opportunity to use their time efficiently and giving them advance notice of their time limits. See Farrakhan v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 226 A.D.2d 133, 136 (1st Dep't 1996). III. RELIEF Since defendants have not offered any reasonable estimate of how long they need to question plaintiffs' witnesses on relevant issues about which defendants have not yet been afforded the opportunity to inquire, Hutton v. Aesthetic Surgery, P.C., 161 A.D.3d at S96; Smukler v. 12 Lofts Realty, 178 A.D.2d 12S, 126 (1st Dep't 1991), the court sets the following limits. Nathel v. Nathel, SS A.D.3d at 434; Matter of Dier, 13 A.D.3d at 1S1; Bielat v. Montrose, 249 A.D.2d at 103; Kingsgate Assocs. v. Advest, Inc., 208 A.D.2d at 3S7. See Caro v. Marsh USA, Inc., 101 A.D.3d 1068, 1069 (2d Dep't 2012); Pucik v. Cornell Univ., 4 A.D.3d at 687. Defendants are entitled to their fourth day of Konefal's deposition, when they may question Konefal further for up to six hours, inclusive of his answers, but exclusive of colloquy. Defendants likewise shall be limited to six hours for their questions to Ancona and his answers, exclusive of colloquy. Defendants are entitled to depose one witness for each of the flatiron. 198 6 7 of 8 [*FILED: 7] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/29/2018 09:10 AM ... NYSCEF DOC. NO. 183 .• INDEX NO. 161543/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/29/2018 three plaintiffs, but shall be limited to 12 hours for their questions to plaintiffs' third witness and the witness' answers, exclusive of colloquy. The court denies plaintiffs' additional requests for relief. Their only basis for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses is 22 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 130-1.1 and 130-1.2. As set forth above, defendants have wasted the parties' time and resources on unnecessary, irrelevant, and unfocussed questions and used the time already afforded to defendants unwisely, establishing the C.P.L.R. basis for the protective order. § 3103 (a). Plaintiffs have not shown, however, that defendants' or their attorneys' conduct was motivated by an intent to harass or annoy the witnesses or other parties, rather than a misguided assumption that defendants were entitled to question witnesses endlessly, however defendants saw fit, without careful, disciplined preparation. See 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 130-1.1; Komolov v. Segal, 96 A.D.3d 513, 514 (1st Dep't 2012); Eggert v. GCD Rec. Studios, 90 A.D.3d 425, 425 (1st Dep't 2011); Haynes v. Haynes, 72 A.D.3d 535, 536 (1st Dep't 2010); Parkchester S. Condominium Inc. v. Hernandez, 71 A.D.3d 503, 504 (1st Dep't 2010). Time limits will require defendants to use their time wisely, with adequate focus, or lose their opportunity for inquiry via depositions. DATED: October 19, 2018 LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C. LUCY BtLLING~· flatiron. 198 7 8 of 8 .r '." '

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.