Jose v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

Holding The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel a deposition because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the insufficiency of existing testimony or the necessity of the requested witness. Additionally, the court correctly quashed subpoenas for nonparties because the plaintiff failed to establish the relevance of their testimony, rendering the subpoenas tantamount to a fishing expedition.

The court’s words

Plaintiff failed to make a detailed showing before the motion court of the insufficiency of the testimony of defendants' witness or of the substantial likelihood that Benios's testimony would lead to material and necessary information

2026 NY Slip Op 05727, at the official text

These nonparties met their threshold burden by demonstrating that the subpoenas were "tantamount to a fishing expedition" based on the testimony of Network's project manager

2026 NY Slip Op 05727, at the official text

In opposition, plaintiff failed to establish the relevance of Vota and Qosaj's testimony

2026 NY Slip Op 05727, at the official text