In Rogovin v. Rogovin, 3 AD3d 352 [1st Dept 2004], a deposition was allowed to be held by video conference where the defendant-deponent was established to be the "sole caregiver for her ailing nonagenarian mother and had a special needs 10 year old daughter" (see, Kirama, supra).Summary of this case from Moreno v. Jimmy G Constr. Corp.
Decided January 13, 2004.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered on or about September 12, 2003, granting defendant's motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3013(a) directing that her deposition be conducted by live video conferencing, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Philip Sherwood Greenhaus, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Donald Novick, for Defendant-Respondent.
Before: Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin, Marlow, JJ.
Defendant's showing 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 A.D.2d 435, 437). 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 plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Motions seeking leave to strike brief and for judicial notice denied.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.