Braun v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

67 A.D.2d 898, 413 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10664
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 5, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 67 A.D.2d 898 (Braun v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea 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
Braun v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 67 A.D.2d 898, 413 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10664 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinions

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 17, 1977, which granted plaintiffs motion for discovery of an accident report and (2) as limited by its brief, from so much of a further order of the same court, dated November 10, 1977, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination. Appeal from the order dated June 17, 1977 dismissed as academic. That order was superseded by the order made upon reargument. Order dated November 10, 1977 reversed insofar as appealed from, and, upon reargument, motion for discovery of the accident report denied. Defendant is awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to cover both appeals. On the present record it appears that the accident report sought was prepared by defendant’s employee solely in preparation for litigation. The report form was drafted by the attorneys representing [899]*899defendant exclusively on accident cases and related occurrences, and the completed report form was immediately forwarded to them. Moreover, these reports were never used to improve efficiency or for any other business purpose, according to the affidavit of defendant’s region comptroller. Accordingly, unlike the document sought in Green v Carey Transp. (38 AD2d 711), which apparently was prepared for the benefit of the employer in his business, this accident report is exempt from disclosure under CPLR 3101 (subd [d], par 2) (see Reese v Long Is. R. R. Co., 24 AD2d 581; Kandel v Tocher, 22 AD2d 513). Gulotta, J. P., Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hinrichs v. Tonnssen
128 Misc. 2d 196 (New York Supreme Court, 1985)
Blasi v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New York, Inc.
121 Misc. 2d 457 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)
Stein v. Trump Village Section No. 4, Inc.
118 Misc. 2d 344 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)
Mogollon v. South African Marine Corp.
88 A.D.2d 586 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Pataki v. Kiseda
80 A.D.2d 100 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Chaplin v. Pathmark Supermarkets
107 Misc. 2d 541 (New York Supreme Court, 1980)
Pinn v. Supermarkets General Corp.
104 Misc. 2d 1112 (Nassau County District Court, 1980)
Carlo v. Queens Transit Corp.
76 A.D.2d 824 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 A.D.2d 898, 413 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braun-v-great-atlantic-pacific-tea-co-nyappdiv-1979.