Birsner v. Town of Islip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Birsner v. Town of Islip

250 A.D.2d 795, 671 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6038

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 26, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for [796]*796personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated August 14, 1997, as denied its cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3103 for a protective order.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s cross motion is granted.

The various discovery demands which are the subject of this appeal were improper, given their overly broad and burdensome nature and their questionable relevance (see, Harris v City of New York, 211 AD2d 663). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy 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 [796]*796personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated August 14, 1997, as denied its cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3103 for a protective order.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s cross motion is granted.

The various discovery demands which are the subject of this appeal were improper, given their overly broad and burdensome nature and their questionable relevance (see, Harris v City of New York, 211 AD2d 663). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Birsner v. Town of Islip, 250 A.D.2d 795, 671 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6038 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

250 A.D.2d 795 (Birsner v. Town of Islip) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related