Famoso v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Famoso v. New York City Transit Authority

61 A.D.2d 790, 402 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10207

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.2d 790 (Famoso v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Famoso v. New York City Transit Authority, 61 A.D.2d 790, 402 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a wrongful death action, defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 23, 1977, as resettled by a further order of the same court, dated July 25, 1977, as, upon their motion for a protective order, directed them to comply with certain items in plaintiffs demand for discovery. Order, as resettled, modified by deleting therefrom the provision which denied defendants’ motion for a protective order as to the item in plaintiffs demand for discovery which sought the statements of witnesses, and substituting therefor a provision granting the motion as to the said item. As so modified, order, as resettled, affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Defendants’ time to comply with the demand for discovery, "as limited”, is extended until 30 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. Under the circumstances of this case, the statements of the witnesses are not subject to disclosure (see Dworkin v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 54 AD2d 922). Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

In a wrongful death action, defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 23, 1977, as resettled by a further order of the same court, dated July 25, 1977, as, upon their motion for a protective order, directed them to comply with certain items in plaintiffs demand for discovery. Order, as resettled, modified by deleting therefrom the provision which denied defendants’ motion for a protective order as to the item in plaintiffs demand for discovery which sought the statements of witnesses, and substituting therefor a provision granting the motion as to the said item. As so modified, order, as resettled, affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Defendants’ time to comply with the demand for discovery, "as limited”, is extended until 30 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. Under the circumstances of this case, the statements of the witnesses are not subject to disclosure (see Dworkin v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 54 AD2d 922). Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 790, 402 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/famoso-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack