Gambino v. St. Mary's Hospital of the Sisters of Charity

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gambino v. St. Mary's Hospital of the Sisters of Charity

37 A.D.2d 903, 325 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3128

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.2d 903 (Gambino v. St. Mary's Hospital of the Sisters of Charity) 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

Gambino v. St. Mary's Hospital of the Sisters of Charity, 37 A.D.2d 903, 325 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3128 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs, Goldman, P. J., not participating. Memorandum: In affirming the order of [904]*904Special Term, we note that the only permissible method for challenging any disclosure device is to move for a protective order under the provisions of CPLR 3103 (Coffey v. Orbachs, Inc., 22 A D 2d 317). While it appears that the plaintiffs have now obtained the information they, sought from the defendant, the defendant’s failure to heed this rule needlessly extended the discovery proceedings and was not in accord with the liberal and full disclosure procedure provided for in article 31 of the CPLR. Accordingly, costs and taxable disbursements should be awarded to the plaintiffs (CPLR 3107, 8301; cf. Goldner v. Lendor Structures, 29 A D 2d 978). All concur except Moule, J., who concurs in the affirmance but dissents as to the awarding of costs to plaintiffs on the ground that plaintiffs were as responsible as defendant for needlessly extending the discovery proceedings. (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term denying motion to strike answer and compel disclosure in negligence action.) Present— Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Moule and Cardamone, JJ.

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

Order affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs, Goldman, P. J., not participating. Memorandum: In affirming the order of [904]*904Special Term, we note that the only permissible method for challenging any disclosure device is to move for a protective order under the provisions of CPLR 3103 (Coffey v. Orbachs, Inc., 22 A D 2d 317). While it appears that the plaintiffs have now obtained the information they, sought from the defendant, the defendant’s failure to heed this rule needlessly extended the discovery proceedings and was not in accord with the liberal and full disclosure procedure provided for in article 31 of the CPLR. Accordingly, costs and taxable disbursements should be awarded to the plaintiffs (CPLR 3107, 8301; cf. Goldner v. Lendor Structures, 29 A D 2d 978). All concur except Moule, J., who concurs in the affirmance but dissents as to the awarding of costs to plaintiffs on the ground that plaintiffs were as responsible as defendant for needlessly extending the discovery proceedings. (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term denying motion to strike answer and compel disclosure in negligence action.) Present— Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Moule and Cardamone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 903, 325 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gambino-v-st-marys-hospital-of-the-sisters-of-charity-nyappdiv-1971.