Abe v. New York University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abe v. New York University

139 A.D.3d 416, 29 N.Y.S.3d 164

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 3, 2016

Docket1030N 105985/10

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 416 (Abe v. New York University) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abe v. New York University, 139 A.D.3d 416, 29 N.Y.S.3d 164 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered February 4, 2015, which denied plaintiffs motion to compel disclosure and for in camera review of documents withheld by the defendants as privileged, to strike defendants’ answers, and for sanctions, and granted defendants’ cross motion to the extent of ordering the return of privileged documents related to defendant Cathleen Dawe that were inadvertently produced to plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to disclose and produce documents listed in their privilege logs, for an in camera review, and other related relief (see 148 Magnolia, LLC v Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 62 AD3d 486, 487 [1st Dept 2009]). Pursuant to a stipulation and order of reference to determine, the JHO determined that all the documents, which were forwarded on a disk, were privileged if they were between Cathleen Dawe, NYU Associate General Counsel, and NYU employees, or if between employees and copied to Dawe. “The law of the case doctrine is a rule of comity and convenience which states that ordinarily a court of coordinate jurisdiction should not disregard an earlier decision on the same question in the same case” (Tenzer, Greenblatt, Fallon & Kaplan v Capri Jewelry, 128 AD2d 467, 469 [1st Dept 1987]). Thus, where the motion court directed that certain issues be determined by a referee, such as the March 20, 2012 stipulation and order of reference to determine in this case, the motion court properly found that the JHO’s determinations were the law of the case (see Shandell v Katz, 159 AD2d 389, 390 [1st Dept 1990] [citation omitted]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Richter, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered February 4, 2015, which denied plaintiffs motion to compel disclosure and for in camera review of documents withheld by the defendants as privileged, to strike defendants’ answers, and for sanctions, and granted defendants’ cross motion to the extent of ordering the return of privileged documents related to defendant Cathleen Dawe that were inadvertently produced to plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to disclose and produce documents listed in their privilege logs, for an in camera review, and other related relief (see 148 Magnolia, LLC v Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 62 AD3d 486, 487 [1st Dept 2009]). Pursuant to a stipulation and order of reference to determine, the JHO determined that all the documents, which were forwarded on a disk, were privileged if they were between Cathleen Dawe, NYU Associate General Counsel, and NYU employees, or if between employees and copied to Dawe. “The law of the case doctrine is a rule of comity and convenience which states that ordinarily a court of coordinate jurisdiction should not disregard an earlier decision on the same question in the same case” (Tenzer, Greenblatt, Fallon & Kaplan v Capri Jewelry, 128 AD2d 467, 469 [1st Dept 1987]). Thus, where the motion court directed that certain issues be determined by a referee, such as the March 20, 2012 stipulation and order of reference to determine in this case, the motion court properly found that the JHO’s determinations were the law of the case (see Shandell v Katz, 159 AD2d 389, 390 [1st Dept 1990] [citation omitted]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Richter, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 416, 29 N.Y.S.3d 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abe-v-new-york-university-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack