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 · Decided February 15, 2011

81 A.D.3d 818; 916 N.Y.S.2d 525

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

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)
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)
Weinstein v. Gindi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
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)
Born to Build, LLC v. Saleh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Born to Build, LLC v. Saleh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Yu Hui Chen v. Chen Li Zhi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Yu Hui Chen v. Chen Li Zhi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated October 9, 2009, as, in effect, denied his cross motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a) directing that his deposition be conducted by remote electronic means and stayed all proceedings in the action until he returns to the United States for his deposition.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the plaintiffs cross motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a) directing that his deposition be conducted by remote electronic means is granted.

While depositions of parties to an action are generally held in the county where the action is pending (see CPLR 3110 [1]), if a party demonstrates that conducting his or her deposition in that county would cause undue hardship, the Supreme Court can order the deposition to be held elsewhere (see Gartner v *819Unified Windows, Doors & Siding, Inc., 68 AD3d 815 [2009]; LaRusso v Brookstone, Inc., 52 AD3d 576, 577 [2008]). Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's cross motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a) directing that his deposition be conducted by remote electronic means. The plaintiff demonstrated that traveling from China to the United States for his deposition would cause undue hardship (see Gartner v Unified Windows, Doors & Siding, Inc., 68 AD3d at 815-816; Wygocki v Milford Plaza Hotel, 38 AD3d 237 [2007]; Rogovin v Rogovin, 3 AD3d 352, 353 [2004]; Matter of Singh, 22 Misc 3d 288 [2008]; see also Hoffman v Kraus, 260 AD2d 435, 437 [1999]; cf. Matter of Albarino, 27 AD3d 556 [2006]).

In light of our determination that the plaintiffs deposition may be conducted by remote electronic means, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in staying all proceedings in the action until the plaintiff could return to the United States for his deposition. Covello, J.P., Eng, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.