Harrison v. Bayley Seton Hospital, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harrison v. Bayley Seton Hospital, Inc.

247 A.D.2d 513, 668 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1430

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 513 (Harrison v. Bayley Seton Hospital, Inc.) 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

Harrison v. Bayley Seton Hospital, Inc., 247 A.D.2d 513, 668 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1430 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated January 24, 1997, which denied their motion to compel the defendants to respond to their discovery demands.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the defendants to respond to the plaintiffs’ discovery demands for numerous records and documents allegedly in the defendants’ possession. The discovery notice improperly stated, inter alia, broad categories of subject matter and asked for any documents relating to those categories without further specification (see, CPLR 3120 [a] [1] [i]; Fascaldi v Fascaldi, 209 AD2d 578, 579; American Reliance Ins. Co. v National Gen. Ins. Co., 174 AD2d 591; Related Cos. v Bishops Servs., 171 AD2d 421, 422).

Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated January 24, 1997, which denied their motion to compel the defendants to respond to their discovery demands.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the defendants to respond to the plaintiffs’ discovery demands for numerous records and documents allegedly in the defendants’ possession. The discovery notice improperly stated, inter alia, broad categories of subject matter and asked for any documents relating to those categories without further specification (see, CPLR 3120 [a] [1] [i]; Fascaldi v Fascaldi, 209 AD2d 578, 579; American Reliance Ins. Co. v National Gen. Ins. Co., 174 AD2d 591; Related Cos. v Bishops Servs., 171 AD2d 421, 422).

Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 513, 668 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-bayley-seton-hospital-inc-nyappdiv-1998.