Argumedo v. 303 Tenants Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Argumedo v. 303 Tenants Corp.

246 A.D.2d 616, 667 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 654

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 616 (Argumedo v. 303 Tenants Corp.) 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

Argumedo v. 303 Tenants Corp., 246 A.D.2d 616, 667 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Fred Cucciniello and Michele Cucciniello appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated January 23, 1997, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order against their demand that the plaintiffs provide authorizations to enable them to obtain discovery of certain records.

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

While CPLR 3101 (a) provides for full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, unlimited disclosure is not required, and supervision of disclosure is generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, City of Mount Vernon v Lexington Ins. Co., 232 AD2d 358). In light of the fact that the appellants have not made a showing that the records at issue even exist, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order (see, Fascaldi v Fascaldi, 209 AD2d 578). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Santucci and McGinity, 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, etc., the defendants Fred Cucciniello and Michele Cucciniello appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated January 23, 1997, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order against their demand that the plaintiffs provide authorizations to enable them to obtain discovery of certain records.

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

While CPLR 3101 (a) provides for full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, unlimited disclosure is not required, and supervision of disclosure is generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, City of Mount Vernon v Lexington Ins. Co., 232 AD2d 358). In light of the fact that the appellants have not made a showing that the records at issue even exist, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order (see, Fascaldi v Fascaldi, 209 AD2d 578). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 616, 667 N.Y.S.2d 305, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/argumedo-v-303-tenants-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack