Gorgoni v. Rapson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gorgoni v. Rapson

166 A.D.2d 901, 560 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12165

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 166 A.D.2d 901 (Gorgoni v. Rapson) 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 901, 560 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gorgoni-v-rapson-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack