Ferris v. Coleman Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ferris v. Coleman Co.

207 A.D.2d 328, 616 N.Y.S.2d 213

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

DecidedAugust 1, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 207 A.D.2d 328 (Ferris v. Coleman 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

Ferris v. Coleman Co., 207 A.D.2d 328, 616 N.Y.S.2d 213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Coleman Company, Inc., and J.C. Penney Co., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), dated December 8, 1992, as directed them to comply with the plaintiff’s expert demands.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the appellants’ time to comply with the plaintiffs’ expert demands is extended until 20 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

It is well settled that a trial court possesses broad discretion to control discovery proceedings, and that discovery rules are to be liberally construed to promote full disclosure (see, U.S. Ice Cream Corp. v Carvel Corp., 190 AD2d 788). Under the facts of the instant matter, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in requiring full disclosure by the parties (see, Dunsmore v Paprin, 114 AD2d 836). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Coleman Company, Inc., and J.C. Penney Co., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), dated December 8, 1992, as directed them to comply with the plaintiff’s expert demands.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the appellants’ time to comply with the plaintiffs’ expert demands is extended until 20 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

It is well settled that a trial court possesses broad discretion to control discovery proceedings, and that discovery rules are to be liberally construed to promote full disclosure (see, U.S. Ice Cream Corp. v Carvel Corp., 190 AD2d 788). Under the facts of the instant matter, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in requiring full disclosure by the parties (see, Dunsmore v Paprin, 114 AD2d 836). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 328, 616 N.Y.S.2d 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferris-v-coleman-co-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack