Albans v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Albans v. City of New York

202 A.D.2d 616, 612 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2936

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 616 (Albans v. City of New York) 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

Albans v. City of New York, 202 A.D.2d 616, 612 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2936 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal, as [617]*617limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated May 15, 1992, as denied those branches of their motion which were for discovery with respect to items numbered 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12 of the plaintiffs’ demand, restricted compliance with regard to items numbered 2, 3, 4, and 11 of the demand, and denied their request for a further deposition of a witness with knowledge.

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

We reject the plaintiffs’ contention that the court improperly limited discovery (see, CPLR 3101 [a]; 3120 [a] [1] [i]; Benzenberg v Telecom Plus, 119 AD2d 717). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Santucci and Altman, 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 plaintiffs appeal, as [617]*617limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated May 15, 1992, as denied those branches of their motion which were for discovery with respect to items numbered 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12 of the plaintiffs’ demand, restricted compliance with regard to items numbered 2, 3, 4, and 11 of the demand, and denied their request for a further deposition of a witness with knowledge.

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

We reject the plaintiffs’ contention that the court improperly limited discovery (see, CPLR 3101 [a]; 3120 [a] [1] [i]; Benzenberg v Telecom Plus, 119 AD2d 717). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 616, 612 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albans-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack