Hall v. 130-10 Food Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hall v. 130-10 Food Corp.

254 A.D.2d 22, 677 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9967

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 22 (Hall v. 130-10 Food Corp.) 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

Hall v. 130-10 Food Corp., 254 A.D.2d 22, 677 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9967 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Sal-man, J.), entered June 25, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from, denied that part of third-party plaintiff’s motion seeking an order compelling third-party defendant Tuscan Dairy Farms, Inc. to produce records regarding a prior similar accident involving one of its employees, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and that part of said motion granted.

The sought-after discovery material, documentation of prior accidents similar to that at issue here, should have been granted. It was relevant in this negligence action to establish that third-party defendant had notice of a particular, dangerous condition (Coan v Long Is. R. R., 246 AD2d 569). “While materiality and necessity [CPLR 3101 (a)] obviously place some limits on the scope of disclosure, disclosure should be permitted as long as the information sought bears on the controversy and will assist in the preparation for trial; the ultimate test is one of ‘ “usefulness and reason” ’ ” (Matter of New York County DES Litig., 171 AD2d 119, 123, quoting O’Neill v Oakgrove Constr., 71 NY2d 521, 526, quoting Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Sal-man, J.), entered June 25, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from, denied that part of third-party plaintiff’s motion seeking an order compelling third-party defendant Tuscan Dairy Farms, Inc. to produce records regarding a prior similar accident involving one of its employees, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and that part of said motion granted.

The sought-after discovery material, documentation of prior accidents similar to that at issue here, should have been granted. It was relevant in this negligence action to establish that third-party defendant had notice of a particular, dangerous condition (Coan v Long Is. R. R., 246 AD2d 569). “While materiality and necessity [CPLR 3101 (a)] obviously place some limits on the scope of disclosure, disclosure should be permitted as long as the information sought bears on the controversy and will assist in the preparation for trial; the ultimate test is one of ‘ “usefulness and reason” ’ ” (Matter of New York County DES Litig., 171 AD2d 119, 123, quoting O’Neill v Oakgrove Constr., 71 NY2d 521, 526, quoting Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 22, 677 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-130-10-food-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack