Blotcher v. Upjohn Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blotcher v. Upjohn Co.

54 A.D.2d 851, 388 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14619

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 851 (Blotcher v. Upjohn Co.) 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

Blotcher v. Upjohn Co., 54 A.D.2d 851, 388 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 6, 1976, denying defendant’s motion to strike interrogatories, reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion granted, with leave to the plaintiff to propound proper interrogatories if so advised. Appellant shall recover of respondents $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. In this suit brought to recover damages for personal injuries to the plaintiff, arising from the use of a drug known as Depo-Provera, and alleging, inter alia, a cause of action for breach of warranty, the plaintiff served the defendant Upjohn with 82 written interrogatories, many of which are further subdivided. The defendant applied at Special Term, pursuant to CPLR 3133, to strike the interrogatories which motion was denied. We would reverse. The interrogatories submitted are unduly broad and oppressive. They demand massive amounts of information, call for opinions and interpretations to be made by the defendant, and seek material irrelevant to the causes of action alleged. We note also that the defendant’s offer to make available to the plaintiff the "New Drug Application,” filed by Upjohn with the Food and Drug Administration, has been repeatedly rejected by the plaintiff. These multiple volumes contain much of the material sought by plaintiff. In view of the oppressive nature of the interrogatories submitted, we have vacated the entire demand rather than attempt to cull out those items which may properly have been requested (Woodmere Academy v Steinberg, 51 AD2d 514; Heimowitz v [852]*852Handler, Kleiman, Sukenik & Segal, 51 AD2d 702, 703). This vacatur is without prejudice to plaintiffs propounding further interrogatories if counsel is so advised. Concur&emdash;Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Birns and Lane, JJ.; Kupferman, J., dissents and would affirm on the opinion of Kirschenbaum, J., at Special Term.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 6, 1976, denying defendant’s motion to strike interrogatories, reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion granted, with leave to the plaintiff to propound proper interrogatories if so advised. Appellant shall recover of respondents $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. In this suit brought to recover damages for personal injuries to the plaintiff, arising from the use of a drug known as Depo-Provera, and alleging, inter alia, a cause of action for breach of warranty, the plaintiff served the defendant Upjohn with 82 written interrogatories, many of which are further subdivided. The defendant applied at Special Term, pursuant to CPLR 3133, to strike the interrogatories which motion was denied. We would reverse. The interrogatories submitted are unduly broad and oppressive. They demand massive amounts of information, call for opinions and interpretations to be made by the defendant, and seek material irrelevant to the causes of action alleged. We note also that the defendant’s offer to make available to the plaintiff the "New Drug Application,” filed by Upjohn with the Food and Drug Administration, has been repeatedly rejected by the plaintiff. These multiple volumes contain much of the material sought by plaintiff. In view of the oppressive nature of the interrogatories submitted, we have vacated the entire demand rather than attempt to cull out those items which may properly have been requested (Woodmere Academy v Steinberg, 51 AD2d 514; Heimowitz v [852]*852Handler, Kleiman, Sukenik & Segal, 51 AD2d 702, 703). This vacatur is without prejudice to plaintiffs propounding further interrogatories if counsel is so advised. Concur&emdash;Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Birns and Lane, JJ.; Kupferman, J., dissents and would affirm on the opinion of Kirschenbaum, J., at Special Term.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 851, 388 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blotcher-v-upjohn-co-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack