Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. State

209 A.D.2d 572, 619 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11522

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 572 (Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. State) 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

Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. State, 209 A.D.2d 572, 619 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11522 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a claim for reimbursement for extra expenses incurred pursuant to a construction contract, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Benza, J.), dated September 7, 1993, which denied [573]*573discovery of a certain document in the possession of the defendant.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon our in camera review of the requested document, we find that the Court of Claims properly determined that the inter-agency report of the Department of Transportation is irrelevant to the subject matter of the claim and privileged under CPLR 3101 (b) (see, Cirale v 80 Pine St. Corp., 35 NY2d 113, 117-118; Matter of Schwartz, 130 Misc 2d 786; see also, Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [g]; O’Shaughnessy v New York State Div. of State Police, 202 AD2d 508; Matter of Rome Sentinel Co. v City of Rome, 174 AD2d 1005, 1006; Matter of Town of Oyster Bay v Williams, 134 AD2d 267). Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—In a claim for reimbursement for extra expenses incurred pursuant to a construction contract, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Benza, J.), dated September 7, 1993, which denied [573]*573discovery of a certain document in the possession of the defendant.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon our in camera review of the requested document, we find that the Court of Claims properly determined that the inter-agency report of the Department of Transportation is irrelevant to the subject matter of the claim and privileged under CPLR 3101 (b) (see, Cirale v 80 Pine St. Corp., 35 NY2d 113, 117-118; Matter of Schwartz, 130 Misc 2d 786; see also, Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [g]; O’Shaughnessy v New York State Div. of State Police, 202 AD2d 508; Matter of Rome Sentinel Co. v City of Rome, 174 AD2d 1005, 1006; Matter of Town of Oyster Bay v Williams, 134 AD2d 267). Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 572, 619 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-fitzpatrick-inc-v-state-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack