Cornell Manufacturing Co. v. Mushlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cornell Manufacturing Co. v. Mushlin

85 A.D.2d 592, 444 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16393

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 85 A.D.2d 592 (Cornell Manufacturing Co. v. Mushlin) 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

Cornell Manufacturing Co. v. Mushlin, 85 A.D.2d 592, 444 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16393 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages from former employees for self-dealing and wasting corporate assets, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered March 6, 1981, as granted a motion by defendants Mushlin to compel plaintiff to produce certain documents. Order modified by adding thereto a provision denying the motion with respect to all statements acquired by plaintiff’s attorney from plaintiff’s employees. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff’s time to produce the remaining documents is extended until 20 days after service upon it of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. The statements taken by plaintiff’s attorney from plaintiff’s employees are privileged under CPLR 3101 (subd [c]) and are protected from disclosure (see Pataki v Kiseda, 80 AD2d 100; Upjohn Co. v United States, 449 US 383). We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Rabin, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages from former employees for self-dealing and wasting corporate assets, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered March 6, 1981, as granted a motion by defendants Mushlin to compel plaintiff to produce certain documents. Order modified by adding thereto a provision denying the motion with respect to all statements acquired by plaintiff’s attorney from plaintiff’s employees. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff’s time to produce the remaining documents is extended until 20 days after service upon it of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. The statements taken by plaintiff’s attorney from plaintiff’s employees are privileged under CPLR 3101 (subd [c]) and are protected from disclosure (see Pataki v Kiseda, 80 AD2d 100; Upjohn Co. v United States, 449 US 383). We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Rabin, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.2d 592, 444 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cornell-manufacturing-co-v-mushlin-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack