Brandon v. Chefetz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brandon v. Chefetz

101 A.D.2d 786, 476 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18434

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

DecidedMay 24, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 101 A.D.2d 786 (Brandon v. Chefetz) 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

Brandon v. Chefetz, 101 A.D.2d 786, 476 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David H. Edwards, J.), entered January 18,1984, granting motion of defendants for a protective order striking interrogatories served by plaintiffs on May 24, 1983, unanimously affirmed, with costs. 11 The interrogatories should be stricken in their entirety as unduly burdensome and oppressive, and plaintiffs should be afforded still another opportunity to comply with the prior order of this court ruling on substantially the same interrogatories (Brandon v Chefetz, 94 AD2d 668), as Special Term suggested in the order and decision appealed from. 11 As both opinions in the case upon which appellants rely concluded (Bassett v Bando Sangsa Co., 94 AD2d 358, 360, 367), it is beyond dispute that “interrogatories are useful for the purpose of determining the existence of documents to set the stage for meaningful depositions”. However, this is not dispositive. The coincidence that the attorney whose objections to interrogatories were overruled by the majority in that case is the same attorney whose interrogatories we now strike does not alter the rule that interrogatories for whatever purpose served should not be so broadly worded and general as to be oppressive. An all-inclusive demand for documents of any and every kind and an all-inclusive demand for information about such documents is improper. Pruning is the job of counsel, not the court. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Silverman, Bloom, Fein and Milonas, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David H. Edwards, J.), entered January 18,1984, granting motion of defendants for a protective order striking interrogatories served by plaintiffs on May 24, 1983, unanimously affirmed, with costs. 11 The interrogatories should be stricken in their entirety as unduly burdensome and oppressive, and plaintiffs should be afforded still another opportunity to comply with the prior order of this court ruling on substantially the same interrogatories (Brandon v Chefetz, 94 AD2d 668), as Special Term suggested in the order and decision appealed from. 11 As both opinions in the case upon which appellants rely concluded (Bassett v Bando Sangsa Co., 94 AD2d 358, 360, 367), it is beyond dispute that “interrogatories are useful for the purpose of determining the existence of documents to set the stage for meaningful depositions”. However, this is not dispositive. The coincidence that the attorney whose objections to interrogatories were overruled by the majority in that case is the same attorney whose interrogatories we now strike does not alter the rule that interrogatories for whatever purpose served should not be so broadly worded and general as to be oppressive. An all-inclusive demand for documents of any and every kind and an all-inclusive demand for information about such documents is improper. Pruning is the job of counsel, not the court. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Silverman, Bloom, Fein and Milonas, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.2d 786, 476 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandon-v-chefetz-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack