Buonaccorso v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buonaccorso v. City of New York

208 A.D.2d 791, 618 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10049

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

DecidedOctober 24, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 791 (Buonaccorso 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

Buonaccorso v. City of New York, 208 A.D.2d 791, 618 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated October 7, 1992, which granted the motion of the defendant General Motors Corporation to vacate and strike the plaintiffs’ notice for discovery and inspection dated July 27,1992.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a trial court has broad discretion in [792]*792supervising discovery (see, Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406; Keenan v Harbor View Health & Beauty Spa, 205 AD2d 589). Here, the notice for discovery and inspection dated July 27, 1992, was largely duplicative of prior notices. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by striking and vacating the notice (see, e.g., Comstock & Co. v City of New York, 80 AD2d 805, 806-807). Copertino, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated October 7, 1992, which granted the motion of the defendant General Motors Corporation to vacate and strike the plaintiffs’ notice for discovery and inspection dated July 27,1992.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a trial court has broad discretion in [792]*792supervising discovery (see, Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406; Keenan v Harbor View Health & Beauty Spa, 205 AD2d 589). Here, the notice for discovery and inspection dated July 27, 1992, was largely duplicative of prior notices. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by striking and vacating the notice (see, e.g., Comstock & Co. v City of New York, 80 AD2d 805, 806-807). Copertino, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 791, 618 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buonaccorso-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack