Ehrlich v. Kubis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ehrlich v. Kubis

23 A.D.2d 782, 258 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4401

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

DecidedApril 19, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 782 (Ehrlich v. Kubis) 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

Ehrlich v. Kubis, 23 A.D.2d 782, 258 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury allegedly sustained in an automobile accident, the corporate defendant, M. A. Hittner & Sons, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 26, 1963, as granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for the discovery and inspection of a written statement made by the individual defendant, Edward Kuibis, to an insurance broker prior to the institution of the action. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs, and plaintiffs’ cross motion denied. In our opinion, the written statement which the individual defendant Edward Kubis gave to the insurance broker during the course of the latter’s investigation into the circumstances of the accident here involved is not available for discovery under CPLR 3101 (Fmegold v. Lewis, 22 A D 2d 447; Kcmdel v. Tocher, 22 A D 2d 513; Zamaglia v. Engert, 23 A D 2d 790). Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, 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 injury allegedly sustained in an automobile accident, the corporate defendant, M. A. Hittner & Sons, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 26, 1963, as granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for the discovery and inspection of a written statement made by the individual defendant, Edward Kuibis, to an insurance broker prior to the institution of the action. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs, and plaintiffs’ cross motion denied. In our opinion, the written statement which the individual defendant Edward Kubis gave to the insurance broker during the course of the latter’s investigation into the circumstances of the accident here involved is not available for discovery under CPLR 3101 (Fmegold v. Lewis, 22 A D 2d 447; Kcmdel v. Tocher, 22 A D 2d 513; Zamaglia v. Engert, 23 A D 2d 790). Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 782, 258 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ehrlich-v-kubis-nyappdiv-1965.