Cronin v. Gramercy Five Associates

233 A.D.2d 263, 650 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12142
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 26, 1996·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinions

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about November 17, 1995, which, inter alia, prohibited defendants from inquiring into plaintiff Shea’s past history of drug and alcohol abuse, affirmed, without costs.

The grant or denial of discovery is a discretionary matter (Brady v Ottaway Newspapers, 63 NY2d 1031). Here, the motion court’s ruling was neither beyond the scope of its power to shape the contours of discovery nor an improvident exercise of its discretion. There was no showing of any relationship between the emotional distress that plaintiff claims resulted from the accident in issue and his past history of substance abuse. Thus, disclosure pertaining to the plaintiff’s history of drug and alcohol abuse was properly precluded (see, Wachtman v Trocaire Coll., 143 AD2d 527, 527-528). Concur—Ellerin, Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Cronin v. Gramercy Five Associates, 233 A.D.2d 263, 650 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12142 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

233 A.D.2d 263 (Cronin v. Gramercy Five Associates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co.
2025 NY Slip Op 25243 (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Alford v. City of New York
116 A.D.3d 483 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
L.S. v. Harouche
260 A.D.2d 250 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Anonymous 1 v. New York Blood Center, Inc.
257 A.D.2d 517 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Anonymous v. New York Blood Center, Inc.
258 A.D.2d 517 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)