Gorgoni v. Rapson

166 A.D.2d 901, 560 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12165
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 5, 1990·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The record fails to support appellant’s contention that preaction discovery is necessary as an aid to bringing an action (see, CPLR 3102 [c]). There is no allegation or suggestion that anyone but the respondent engaged in any wrongful conduct, and the nature of potential causes of action is apparent from the allegations set forth in the moving papers. Preaction disclosure should not be permitted where, as here, the applicant has sufficient information to enable her to draft a complaint without the examination she seeks (L-Tron Corp. v Davco Sys., 60 AD2d 25, 29). Under the circumstances, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the application. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J.— preaction discovery.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.

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

Gorgoni v. Rapson, 166 A.D.2d 901, 560 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12165 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

166 A.D.2d 901 (Gorgoni v. Rapson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Davis
178 Misc. 2d 65 (New York State Court of Claims, 1998)
Moorman v. K.M. Davies Co.
216 A.D.2d 958 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)