Baratta v. Pallotta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baratta v. Pallotta

81 A.D.2d 1040, 440 N.Y.S.2d 115, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11811

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

DecidedMay 27, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 81 A.D.2d 1040 (Baratta v. Pallotta) 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

Baratta v. Pallotta, 81 A.D.2d 1040, 440 N.Y.S.2d 115, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11811 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied without prejudice to renew within 20 days from the date of service of the order herein. Memorandum: Third-party defendant’s motion for a protective order denying discovery of the results of certain tests was improperly granted (CPLR 3103). A party opposing discovery bears the burden of proving that the material sought was prepared for litigation and, therefore, was immune from disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101 (subd [d]) (Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 294; Mobil Oil Corp. v State of New York, 52 AD2d 1033). The attorney’s conclusory allegations were insufficient to meet this burden (Hunt v Joseph, 67 AD2d 697). (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court — examination before trial — protective order.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied without prejudice to renew within 20 days from the date of service of the order herein. Memorandum: Third-party defendant’s motion for a protective order denying discovery of the results of certain tests was improperly granted (CPLR 3103). A party opposing discovery bears the burden of proving that the material sought was prepared for litigation and, therefore, was immune from disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101 (subd [d]) (Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 294; Mobil Oil Corp. v State of New York, 52 AD2d 1033). The attorney’s conclusory allegations were insufficient to meet this burden (Hunt v Joseph, 67 AD2d 697). (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court — examination before trial — protective order.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 1040, 440 N.Y.S.2d 115, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baratta-v-pallotta-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack