Adams v. Imperial

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adams v. Imperial

115 A.D.3d 893, 982 N.Y.S.2d 396

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

DecidedMarch 26, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.3d 893 (Adams v. Imperial) 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

Adams v. Imperial, 115 A.D.3d 893, 982 N.Y.S.2d 396 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the de[894]*894fendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated June 6, 2013, as upon, in effect, denying his motion, inter alia, to vacate the note of issue, determined that he was not entitled to certain discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in concluding that the defendant was not entitled to further authorizations for the plaintiffs employment records (see Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]; Parise v Good Samaritan Hosp., 36 AD3d 678 [2007]; Cable v IBM Corp., 101 AD2d 799 [1984]; see also Romance v Zavala, 98 AD3d 726 [2012]; Rochester Linoleum & Carpet Ctr., Inc. v Cassin, 61 AD3d 1201, 1202 [2009]). Similarly, it was a provident exercise of the court’s discretion to deny the defendant access to the injured plaintiffs health insurance records (see Romance v Zavala, 98 AD3d at 728).

Dickerson, J.E, Chambers, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the de[894]*894fendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated June 6, 2013, as upon, in effect, denying his motion, inter alia, to vacate the note of issue, determined that he was not entitled to certain discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in concluding that the defendant was not entitled to further authorizations for the plaintiffs employment records (see Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]; Parise v Good Samaritan Hosp., 36 AD3d 678 [2007]; Cable v IBM Corp., 101 AD2d 799 [1984]; see also Romance v Zavala, 98 AD3d 726 [2012]; Rochester Linoleum & Carpet Ctr., Inc. v Cassin, 61 AD3d 1201, 1202 [2009]). Similarly, it was a provident exercise of the court’s discretion to deny the defendant access to the injured plaintiffs health insurance records (see Romance v Zavala, 98 AD3d at 728).

Dickerson, J.E, Chambers, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.3d 893, 982 N.Y.S.2d 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-imperial-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack