Cohen v. Hardy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Hardy

23 A.D.2d 793, 258 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4369

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

DecidedApril 26, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 23 A.D.2d 793 (Cohen v. Hardy) 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

Cohen v. Hardy, 23 A.D.2d 793, 258 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury and loss of services allegedly sustained as the result of an automobile accident, the defendants Hardy appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 27, 1965, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for the discovery and inspection of the statement and reports of the accident given by the defendant Willie Hardy to his insurance carrier. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied. In our opinion, the record fails to show that the statement and reports which plaintiffs seek to discover can no longer be duplicated because of a change in conditions and that withholding them will result in injustice or undue hardship. In the absence of such proof, and since the statements given by an insured to his own insurer constitute material prepared for litigation regardless of when the statements are given or whether an action is then pending, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the discovery and inspection sought (Finegold v. Lewis, 22 A D 2d 447; TL andel v. Tocher, 22 A D 2d 513; CPLR 3101, subd. [d], par. 2). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury and loss of services allegedly sustained as the result of an automobile accident, the defendants Hardy appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 27, 1965, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for the discovery and inspection of the statement and reports of the accident given by the defendant Willie Hardy to his insurance carrier. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied. In our opinion, the record fails to show that the statement and reports which plaintiffs seek to discover can no longer be duplicated because of a change in conditions and that withholding them will result in injustice or undue hardship. In the absence of such proof, and since the statements given by an insured to his own insurer constitute material prepared for litigation regardless of when the statements are given or whether an action is then pending, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the discovery and inspection sought (Finegold v. Lewis, 22 A D 2d 447; TL andel v. Tocher, 22 A D 2d 513; CPLR 3101, subd. [d], par. 2). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 793, 258 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-hardy-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack