Blumenthal v. Tops Friendly Markets
182 A.D.2d 1105, 586 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6983
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 24, 1992·Published·Cited by 6 cases
Opinion
Order unanimously affirmed with costs. [1106] Memorandum: Supreme Court is vested with broad discretion in supervising disclosure (see, Matter of Love Canal Actions, 161 AD2d 1169, 1170; Sarbro Realty Corp. v Kradjian, 116 AD2d 866, 867). We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs request for discovery of information relating to other Tops employees. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Affronti, J. — Discovery.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Lawton, Boehm and Davis, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Blumenthal v. Tops Friendly Markets, 182 A.D.2d 1105, 586 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6983 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).
182 A.D.2d 1105 (Blumenthal v. Tops Friendly Markets) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
SCHLAU, JR., KENNETH M. v. CITY OF BUFFALO
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
Schlau v. City of Buffalo
125 A.D.3d 1546 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
ABR-Amtliches Bayerisches Reisebuero GmbH v. Blue Bird Coach Lines, Inc.
249 A.D.2d 983 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Hardy v. Tops Markets, Inc.
231 A.D.2d 879 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Krapf Business Systems, Inc. v. Data Control, Inc.
202 A.D.2d 1020 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)