Finn v. Town of Southampton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Finn v. Town of Southampton

266 A.D.2d 429, 698 N.Y.S.2d 539

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

DecidedNovember 22, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 429 (Finn v. Town of Southampton) 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

Finn v. Town of Southampton, 266 A.D.2d 429, 698 N.Y.S.2d 539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., Mercedes-Benz Credit Corporation, a defendant in Action No. 2, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated February 10, 1999, as denied that branch of its motion which was to compel Joseph E. McVeigh, a plaintiff in Action No. 2, to provide authorizations for his complete academic, employment, and medical records.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the motion of Mercedes-Benz Credit Corporation (hereinafter MBCC), a defendant in Action No. 2, which was to compel Joseph E. McVeigh, a plaintiff in Action No. 2, to provide authorizations for his complete academic, employment, and medical records. The notice to produce of MBCC was overbroad and failed to specify the documents sought with “reasonable particularity” (CPLR 3120 [a] [2]; Harrison v Bayley Seton Hosp., 247 AD2d 513; Julius Blum, Inc. v Allied Hardware, 237 AD2d 492; Fascaldi v Fascaldi, 209 AD2d 578, 579; American Reliance Ins. Co. v National Gen. Ins. Co., 174 AD2d 591). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Gold-stein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., Mercedes-Benz Credit Corporation, a defendant in Action No. 2, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated February 10, 1999, as denied that branch of its motion which was to compel Joseph E. McVeigh, a plaintiff in Action No. 2, to provide authorizations for his complete academic, employment, and medical records.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the motion of Mercedes-Benz Credit Corporation (hereinafter MBCC), a defendant in Action No. 2, which was to compel Joseph E. McVeigh, a plaintiff in Action No. 2, to provide authorizations for his complete academic, employment, and medical records. The notice to produce of MBCC was overbroad and failed to specify the documents sought with “reasonable particularity” (CPLR 3120 [a] [2]; Harrison v Bayley Seton Hosp., 247 AD2d 513; Julius Blum, Inc. v Allied Hardware, 237 AD2d 492; Fascaldi v Fascaldi, 209 AD2d 578, 579; American Reliance Ins. Co. v National Gen. Ins. Co., 174 AD2d 591). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Gold-stein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 429, 698 N.Y.S.2d 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finn-v-town-of-southampton-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack