Diaz v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Diaz v. City of New York

140 A.D.3d 826, 31 N.Y.S.3d 892

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

DecidedJune 8, 2016

Docket2015-07272

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 826 (Diaz v. City of New York) 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

Diaz v. City of New York, 140 A.D.3d 826, 31 N.Y.S.3d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*827 In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jimenez-Salta, J.), dated March 27, 2015, as denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the defendant Verizon New York, Inc., to respond to their notice for discovery and inspection dated July 16, 2014.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

By notice for discovery and inspection dated July 16, 2014, the plaintiffs sought records from the defendant Verizon New York, Inc., concerning an easement that was granted to New York Telephone Company more than 11 years prior to the subject accident. This discovery request was palpably improper, as it sought information that was not necessary and proper to the prosecution of this action (see Cook v HMC Times Sq. Hotel, LLC, 112 AD3d 485 [2013]; Accent Collections, Inc. v Cappelli Enters., Inc., 84 AD3d 1283 [2011]; Velez v South Nine Realty Corp., 32 AD3d 1017, 1019 [2006]; Giordano v A&M Tool & Die Co., 104 AD2d 1027 [1984]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the defendant Verizon New York, Inc., to respond to their notice for discovery and inspection dated July 16, 2014.

Leventhal, J.P., Chambers, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.

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

*827 In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jimenez-Salta, J.), dated March 27, 2015, as denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the defendant Verizon New York, Inc., to respond to their notice for discovery and inspection dated July 16, 2014.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

By notice for discovery and inspection dated July 16, 2014, the plaintiffs sought records from the defendant Verizon New York, Inc., concerning an easement that was granted to New York Telephone Company more than 11 years prior to the subject accident. This discovery request was palpably improper, as it sought information that was not necessary and proper to the prosecution of this action (see Cook v HMC Times Sq. Hotel, LLC, 112 AD3d 485 [2013]; Accent Collections, Inc. v Cappelli Enters., Inc., 84 AD3d 1283 [2011]; Velez v South Nine Realty Corp., 32 AD3d 1017, 1019 [2006]; Giordano v A&M Tool & Die Co., 104 AD2d 1027 [1984]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the defendant Verizon New York, Inc., to respond to their notice for discovery and inspection dated July 16, 2014.

Leventhal, J.P., Chambers, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 826, 31 N.Y.S.3d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diaz-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack