Di Resto v. Long Island Lighting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Di Resto v. Long Island Lighting Co.

61 A.D.2d 789, 401 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10205

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 61 A.D.2d 789 (Di Resto v. Long Island Lighting Co.) 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

Di Resto v. Long Island Lighting Co., 61 A.D.2d 789, 401 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10205 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 26, 1977, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order and denied defendant’s cross motion to compel compliance with its notice of discovery and inspection. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements; motion denied and cross motion granted; and plaintiffs are directed to comply with item 2 of the notice of discovery and inspection; items 3, 4 and 5 of the notice were sought only as an alternative to discovery and inspection of item 2. The latter was not a privileged item and is within the proper realm of discoverable material. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 26, 1977, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order and denied defendant’s cross motion to compel compliance with its notice of discovery and inspection. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements; motion denied and cross motion granted; and plaintiffs are directed to comply with item 2 of the notice of discovery and inspection; items 3, 4 and 5 of the notice were sought only as an alternative to discovery and inspection of item 2. The latter was not a privileged item and is within the proper realm of discoverable material. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 789, 401 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/di-resto-v-long-island-lighting-co-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack