Carter v. Andriani

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carter v. Andriani

88 A.D.2d 799, 450 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17096

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

DecidedJune 1, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 799 (Carter v. Andriani) 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

Carter v. Andriani, 88 A.D.2d 799, 450 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17096 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donald Sullivan, J.), entered February 23, 1982, insofar as it denied the branches of defendants’ motion to strike Items Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of plaintiffs’ notice for discovery and inspection, reversed, on the law, and the protective order granted to strike those five items without prejudice to a new and proper notice after completion of depositions, with costs. Generally, a party should specifically identify relevant documents through disclosure before serving a notice for discovery [800]*800and inspection. (Rios v Donovan, 21 AD2d 409, 414.) In this proceeding, the plaintiffs’ notice is drawn in overly broad terms. The plaintiffs should have first examined defendants to ascertain the specific documents pertinent to their cause based upon the intentional infliction of emotional stress (84 AD2d 513). Therefore, defendants’ motion for a protective order will be granted without prejudice to plaintiffs’ right to serve a new and proper notice after they have deposed the defendants. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sandler, Markewich and Bloom, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donald Sullivan, J.), entered February 23, 1982, insofar as it denied the branches of defendants’ motion to strike Items Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of plaintiffs’ notice for discovery and inspection, reversed, on the law, and the protective order granted to strike those five items without prejudice to a new and proper notice after completion of depositions, with costs. Generally, a party should specifically identify relevant documents through disclosure before serving a notice for discovery [800]*800and inspection. (Rios v Donovan, 21 AD2d 409, 414.) In this proceeding, the plaintiffs’ notice is drawn in overly broad terms. The plaintiffs should have first examined defendants to ascertain the specific documents pertinent to their cause based upon the intentional infliction of emotional stress (84 AD2d 513). Therefore, defendants’ motion for a protective order will be granted without prejudice to plaintiffs’ right to serve a new and proper notice after they have deposed the defendants. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sandler, Markewich and Bloom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 799, 450 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-andriani-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack