Cramp v. Cramp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cramp v. Cramp

114 A.D.2d 835, 494 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53845

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 4, 1985·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Palella, J.), entered January 16, 1985, which granted the defendant wife’s motion for a protective order against the plaintiff’s 10 separate discovery demands.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The granting of the protective order here was a proper exercise of discretion since the plaintiff’s numerous demands were burdensome and oppressive, and many were so vague or inappropriate that no proper response could be formulated. In such a case, the demands should be vacated rather than pruned, as the " 'burden of serving a proper demand is upon counsel, and [it is] not for the courts to correct a palpably bad [836] one’ ” (Martino v Mid-Island Hosp., 73 AD2d 592, quoting from Itzkoff v Allstate Ins. Co., 59 AD2d 854; Barouh Eaton Allen Corp. v International Business Machs. Corp., 76 AD2d 873; Hirsch v Catholic Med. Center, 91 AD2d 1033). Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Kooper, 33., concur.

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

—In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Palella, J.), entered January 16, 1985, which granted the defendant wife’s motion for a protective order against the plaintiff’s 10 separate discovery demands.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The granting of the protective order here was a proper exercise of discretion since the plaintiff’s numerous demands were burdensome and oppressive, and many were so vague or inappropriate that no proper response could be formulated. In such a case, the demands should be vacated rather than pruned, as the " 'burden of serving a proper demand is upon counsel, and [it is] not for the courts to correct a palpably bad [836] one’ ” (Martino v Mid-Island Hosp., 73 AD2d 592, quoting from Itzkoff v Allstate Ins. Co., 59 AD2d 854; Barouh Eaton Allen Corp. v International Business Machs. Corp., 76 AD2d 873; Hirsch v Catholic Med. Center, 91 AD2d 1033). Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Kooper, 33., concur.

Cramp v. Cramp, 114 A.D.2d 835, 494 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53845 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

114 A.D.2d 835 (Cramp v. Cramp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related