Practice point: The Appellate Division determined that the motion court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of plaintiff's cross motion, which was made pursuant to CPLR 3103(a), for a protective order directing that his deposition be conducted by remote electronic means. The Appellate Division found that, in light of the evidence that the plaintiff's applications for a visa to return to the United States had been denied, and the evidence establishing that he presently was ineligible to be admitted to the United States, plaintiff demonstrated that traveling from China to the United States for his deposition or independent medical examination would cause undue hardship.
Student note: Generally, the deposition of a party
should take place within the county where the action is pending, pursuant to CPLR 3110[1]). There is an exception to this rule if the party demonstrates that
examination in that county would cause undue hardship.
Case: Feng Wang v. A & W Travel, Inc., NY Slip Op 06312 (2d Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Collateral estoppel as a bar to a convicted defendant's relitigating liability in a civil action.
