Defendant's cross motion for a protective order was properly denied because the representatives already deposed were not present when the utility box that allegedly caused plaintiff's injury was installed, and could not say with certainty whether Delprete, a field manager for defendant, was present. Further, there is a substantial likelihood that Delprete would be able to provide material and necessary information (see Alexopoulos v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
AMATO v. VERIZON N.Y. INC.
Index No. 158593/17. Appeal No. 15876-15877. Case No. 2021-04008. 2021-02729.
205 A.D.3d 406 (2022)
168 N.Y.S.3d 36
2022 NY Slip Op 02939
Laura Amato, Respondent, v. Verizon New York Inc., Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided May 3, 2022.
Decided May 3, 2022.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York ( Patrick J. Lawless of counsel), for appellant.
Law Offices of Louis Grandelli, P.C., New York ( Leigh D. Eskenasi of counsel), for respondent.
Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Gesmer, Moulton, Mendez, Higgitt, JJ.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
