From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nama Air Cargo Co. v. Unitrans Consolidated, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 11, 1994
208 A.D.2d 604 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

October 11, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff, a South Korean company, demonstrated that it would be expensive and time-consuming for its president to travel to New York for a deposition before trial and then again for the trial (see, Oneto v. Hotel Waldorf-Astoria Corp., 65 A.D.2d 520, 521; Zilken v. Leader, 23 A.D.2d 644; Ascona Cie., Anstalt v Horn, 32 A.D.2d 755). Accordingly, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff a protective order (see, CPLR 3103 [a]; Boylin v. Eagle Telephonics, 130 A.D.2d 538). Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Nama Air Cargo Co. v. Unitrans Consolidated, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 11, 1994
208 A.D.2d 604 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Nama Air Cargo Co. v. Unitrans Consolidated, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:NAMA AIR CARGO CO., LTD., Respondent, v. UNITRANS CONSOLIDATED, INC.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 11, 1994

Citations

208 A.D.2d 604 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
617 N.Y.S.2d 367

Citing Cases

Kozak v. Marshall

The Plaintiff does not dispute that the Defendant resides in California. Where, as here, the Defendant…

ABR-Amtliches Bayerisches Reisebuero GmbH v. Blue Bird Coach Lines, Inc.

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting a…