Case Name: Tatiana Beliavskaia et al., Respondents, v. Hyman Perkin et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1996-05-16
Citations: 227 A.D.2d 246
Docket Number: 
Parties: Tatiana Beliavskaia et al., Respondents, v Hyman Per-kin et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 227
Pages: 246–246

Head Matter:
Tatiana Beliavskaia et al., Respondents, v Hyman Per-kin et al., Appellants.
[642 NYS2d 522]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about December 21,1995, which granted plaintiffs' motion to preserve Ms. Beliavskaia's testimony by videotape, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
An affidavit showing unusual or unanticipated circumstances justifying a departure from the general rule foreclosing discovery after the filing of a note of issue (22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]) was not required here since the relief sought was not in the nature of discovery (cf., Hill v Sheehan, 154 AD2d 912).
We have considered defendants' other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.