Conti v. Allstate Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conti v. Allstate Insurance

47 A.D.2d 918, 367 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9355

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

DecidedApril 21, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.2d 918 (Conti v. Allstate Insurance) 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

Conti v. Allstate Insurance, 47 A.D.2d 918, 367 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9355 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alla, to recover damages for defamation and for violations of the State antitrust laws, defendant appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 18, 1974, as denied so much of its cross motion as sought a protective order. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $20 costs and disbursements, and that branch of defendant’s cross motion which sought a protective order granted. Settle order on five days’ notice in accordance with the proposed protective order submitted by defendant to Special Term. We find that there exists reasonable cause to believe that plaintiffs might use the information sought for a purpose other than in furtherance of the pending litigation. Therefore, the motion for a protective order should have been granted. Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Cohalan and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alla, to recover damages for defamation and for violations of the State antitrust laws, defendant appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 18, 1974, as denied so much of its cross motion as sought a protective order. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $20 costs and disbursements, and that branch of defendant’s cross motion which sought a protective order granted. Settle order on five days’ notice in accordance with the proposed protective order submitted by defendant to Special Term. We find that there exists reasonable cause to believe that plaintiffs might use the information sought for a purpose other than in furtherance of the pending litigation. Therefore, the motion for a protective order should have been granted. Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Cohalan and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 918, 367 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conti-v-allstate-insurance-nyappdiv-1975.