Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004

Rogovin v. Rogovin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 13, 2004

3 A.D.3d 352; 770 N.Y.S.2d 342; 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 214

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff & Cohen, P.C. v. Ria R Squared, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
GABRIEL, HUGO RAFAEL RAMIREZ v. JOHNSTON'S L.P. GAS SERVICE, INC. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Gabriel v. Johnston's L.P. Gas Service, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Gabriel v. Johnston's L.P. Gas Service, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
American Bank Note Corp. v. Daniele (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Yu Hui Chen v. Chen Li Zhi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
In re the Estate of Smith (New York Surrogate's Court 2010)
Gartner v. Unified Windows, Doors & Siding, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
LaRusso v. Brookstone, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
In re the Estate of Singh (New York Surrogate's Court 2008)
In re the Estate of Albarino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silber*353mann, J.), entered on or about September 12, 2003, granting defendant’s motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a) directing that her deposition be conducted by live video conferencing, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant showed that requiring her to travel from her home in Kansas to New York City to be deposed would result in hardship, since she is the sole caregiver for her ailing nonagenarian grandmother, who is afflicted with dementia and requires around-the-clock care. She also has sole responsibility for a 10-year-old daughter with special needs. These factors are sufficient to warrant an exception from the rule that a nonresident defendant’s deposition should take place in the county where the action is pending (see Hoffman v Kraus, 260 AD2d 435, 437 [1999]). Thus, it was proper to permit defendant to be deposed by means of live video conferencing, a substitute for live testimony we find reasonable under the circumstances.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.