LaRusso v Brookstone, Inc.
2008 NY Slip Op 05484
Decided on June 10, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on June 10, 2008
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
ROBERT A. LIFSON
HOWARD MILLER
EDWARD D. CARNI
RANDALL T. ENG, JJ.

2007-04765
(Index No. 13546-05)

[*1]Daniel LaRusso, et al., plaintiffs-appellants,

v

Brookstone, Inc., respondent, Salvatore Rizzo, defendant-appellant. Fishman & Tynan, Merrick, N.Y. (John Fishman of counsel), for defendant-appellant.





Hammill, O'Brien, Croutier, Dempsey & Pender, P.C., Syosset,
N.Y. (Maureen Quinn of counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Salvatore Rizzo appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), dated April 18, 2007, which granted the motion of the defendant Brookstone, Inc., for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103, and the plaintiffs separately appeal from the same order.

ORDERED that the appeal by the plaintiffs is dismissed as abandoned (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[e]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, and the motion by the defendant Brookstone, Inc., for a protective order is denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant Salvatore Rizzo payable by the defendant Brookstone, Inc.

Generally, when a party to the action is to be deposed, the deposition should take place "within the county . . . where the action is pending" (CPLR 3110[1]). An exception to this rule is where a party demonstrates that examination in that county would cause "undue hardship" (Rodriguez v Infinity Ins. Co., 283 AD2d 969, 970; Farrakhan v N.Y.P. Holdings, 226 AD2d 133, [*2]135; cf. Rogovin v Rogovin, 3 AD3d 352; Hoffman v Kraus, 260 AD2d 435, 437). In this case, the defendant Brookstone, Inc., which is headquartered in Merrimack, New Hampshire, failed to demonstrate that the appearance for a deposition in Suffolk County constituted an undue hardship. Therefore, it was not entitled to a protective order.
RIVERA, J.P., LIFSON, MILLER, CARNI and ENG, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.