Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Gardner v. Honda Motor Co.

Gardner v. Honda Motor Co.

187 A.D.2d 1033, 593 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14085
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 18, 1992
StatusPublished

This text of 187 A.D.2d 1033 (Gardner v. Honda Motor 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
Gardner v. Honda Motor Co., 187 A.D.2d 1033, 593 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14085 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proving that the materials sought by defendants are exempt from disclosure (see generally, Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 294-295; Central Buffalo Project Corp. v Rainbow Salads, 140 AD2d 943, 944). The court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for a protective order. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J. — Discovery.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

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

Related

Koump v. Smith
250 N.E.2d 857 (New York Court of Appeals, 1969)
Central Buffalo Project Corp. v. Rainbow Salads, Inc.
140 A.D.2d 943 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
187 A.D.2d 1033, 593 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-honda-motor-co-nyappdiv-1992.