- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Abad v. 288 Water Street Owner, LLC
- Date
- June 3, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03416
Background
Plaintiff Luis Bravo Abad commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained while working on a construction job at 288 Water Street. After appearing for depositions on three separate dates during which he was questioned by the defendants and third-party defendant Sunshine of East Coast, Inc. (Sunshine) for a total of approximately 13 hours including breaks, defendants requested a fourth deposition session.
Plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) to limit any further deposition to the issue of his most recent right knee surgery for a period not to exceed 1.5 hours. Supreme Court, Kings County (Leon Ruchelsman, J.), granted the motion to the extent of directing that further deposition would be limited to the issue of damages and would not exceed two hours. Both the defendants and Sunshine separately appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs. The Court applied 22 NYCRR 202.20-b(a)(2), which limits depositions to seven hours per deponent unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court. The Court emphasized that for good cause shown, the court may alter the limits on the number of depositions or duration, citing Wanliss v. Retina Associates of N.Y., P.C., 230 AD3d 1270, 1271.
The panel found that defendants and Sunshine failed to demonstrate that good cause warranted expanding the scope or length of the plaintiff’s further deposition beyond the limitations imposed by the trial court. Given that the plaintiff had already been deposed for approximately 13 hours across three sessions—nearly double the presumptive seven-hour limit—the additional two-hour limitation on damages-related questioning was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion.
Takeaways
This case reinforces the seven-hour presumptive deposition limit established by 22 NYCRR 202.20-b and illustrates courts’ willingness to enforce it when depositions have already consumed excessive time. Parties seeking to extend depositions beyond the regulatory limit must demonstrate good cause, which may include showing improper conduct or obstruction by the deponent or that the initial time allotment was insufficient under the circumstances. Here, 13 hours of prior questioning made it difficult for defendants to justify further open-ended examination.
Why It Matters
For litigators, this decision serves as a practical reminder that New York’s deposition time limits have teeth. After 13 hours of deposition, courts will carefully scrutinize requests for additional sessions and are likely to impose substantive and temporal limitations. Practitioners should use deposition time efficiently and prioritize their most important lines of questioning early in the process. If additional time is needed, a clear, specific showing of good cause will be required. This case also highlights that courts may exercise their discretion to narrow the scope of further depositions to specific issues, such as damages, rather than permitting open-ended re-examination.