Cushing v. Seemann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cushing v. Seemann

238 A.D.2d 950, 661 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4804

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

DecidedApril 25, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 950 (Cushing v. Seemann) 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

Cushing v. Seemann, 238 A.D.2d 950, 661 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4804 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: In [951]*951this action for personal injury and wrongful death arising out of an automobile accident, defendants appeal from an order insofar as it denied defendants’ motion to compel disclosure of documents containing or reflecting communications between plaintiffs’ attorneys and plaintiffs’ treating psychiatrist and expert witness, Dr. Miller. After reviewing those documents in camera, we conclude that Supreme Court properly determined that they are immune from disclosure as the "work product of an attorney” (CPLR 3101 [c]). Moreover, the documents are "protected] against disclosure” as materials prepared for litigation insofar as they contain or reflect the "mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation” (CPLR 3101 [d] [2]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Contiguglia, J.—Disclosure.) Present—Den-man, P. J., Green, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: In [951]*951this action for personal injury and wrongful death arising out of an automobile accident, defendants appeal from an order insofar as it denied defendants’ motion to compel disclosure of documents containing or reflecting communications between plaintiffs’ attorneys and plaintiffs’ treating psychiatrist and expert witness, Dr. Miller. After reviewing those documents in camera, we conclude that Supreme Court properly determined that they are immune from disclosure as the "work product of an attorney” (CPLR 3101 [c]). Moreover, the documents are "protected] against disclosure” as materials prepared for litigation insofar as they contain or reflect the "mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation” (CPLR 3101 [d] [2]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Contiguglia, J.—Disclosure.) Present—Den-man, P. J., Green, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 950, 661 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cushing-v-seemann-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack