LaRusso v. Brookstone, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Feng Wang v. A & W Travel, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Feng Wang v. A & W Travel, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Yu Hui Chen v. Chen Li Zhi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Gartner v. Unified Windows, Doors & Siding, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- In re the Estate of Singh (New York Surrogate's Court 2008)
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
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 [2001]; Farrakhan v N.Y.P. Holdings, 226 AD2d 133,135 [1996]; cf. Rogovin v Rogovin, 3 AD3d 352 [2004]; Hoffman v Kraus, 260 AD2d 435, 437 [1999]). 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, Garni and Eng, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.