Brecht v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brecht v. City of New York

14 A.D.2d 790, 220 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8580

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

DecidedOctober 16, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 A.D.2d 790 (Brecht v. City of New York) 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

Brecht v. City of New York, 14 A.D.2d 790, 220 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8580 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

[791]*791The matters requested are not reports and records required by statute to be made and filed and, therefore, do not come within section 66-a of the Public Officers Law (Matter of Erenberg v. Brill, 10 A D 2d 769). Discovery and inspection of the first three items mentioned may not be had under section 324 of the Civil Practice Act (Briant v. New York City Tr. Auth., 7 A D 2d 756; Faendrick v. Allied Aviation Serv. Int. Corp., 284 App. Div. 898; Ehrlich v. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 251 App. Div. 721; Falco v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 161 App. Div. 735). Nor may there be discovery and inspection of the statement of the witness (Urbina v. McLain, 4 A D 2d 589). It should also be noted that application under section 66-a of the Public Officers Law should be made under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, and not by motion in a negligence action (cf. Matter of New York Post Corp. v. Moses, 10 N Y 2d 199). Beldock, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

[791]*791The matters requested are not reports and records required by statute to be made and filed and, therefore, do not come within section 66-a of the Public Officers Law (Matter of Erenberg v. Brill, 10 A D 2d 769). Discovery and inspection of the first three items mentioned may not be had under section 324 of the Civil Practice Act (Briant v. New York City Tr. Auth., 7 A D 2d 756; Faendrick v. Allied Aviation Serv. Int. Corp., 284 App. Div. 898; Ehrlich v. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 251 App. Div. 721; Falco v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 161 App. Div. 735). Nor may there be discovery and inspection of the statement of the witness (Urbina v. McLain, 4 A D 2d 589). It should also be noted that application under section 66-a of the Public Officers Law should be made under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, and not by motion in a negligence action (cf. Matter of New York Post Corp. v. Moses, 10 N Y 2d 199). Beldock, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.2d 790, 220 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brecht-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack