Hartigan v. Acme Markets, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hartigan v. Acme Markets, Inc.

95 A.D.2d 824, 464 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18758

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

DecidedJune 20, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 A.D.2d 824 (Hartigan v. Acme Markets, 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

Hartigan v. Acme Markets, Inc., 95 A.D.2d 824, 464 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18758 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover gas utility charges due under a lease, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Hurowitz, J.), dated June 22,1982, which denied its [825]*825motion for a protective order. Order modified, by adding to the decretal paragraph thereof following the word “is” the words “granted to the extent of vacating plaintiff’s notice to produce dated February 9, 1982, and is otherwise”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Inasmuch as almost none of the items sought in plaintiff’s notice to produce is identified with the particularity required by CPLR 3120 (subd [a], par 1, cl [i]) (Ganin v Janow, 86 AD2d 857, 858), this court will not attempt to “prune” plaintiff’s list but will instead strike the entire notice (cf. Carroad v Regensburg, 17 AD2d 734). Plaintiff’s notice for discovery and inspection of defendant’s premises, however, was proper under CPLR 3120 (subd La], par 1, cl [ii]). Gulotta, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover gas utility charges due under a lease, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Hurowitz, J.), dated June 22,1982, which denied its [825]*825motion for a protective order. Order modified, by adding to the decretal paragraph thereof following the word “is” the words “granted to the extent of vacating plaintiff’s notice to produce dated February 9, 1982, and is otherwise”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Inasmuch as almost none of the items sought in plaintiff’s notice to produce is identified with the particularity required by CPLR 3120 (subd [a], par 1, cl [i]) (Ganin v Janow, 86 AD2d 857, 858), this court will not attempt to “prune” plaintiff’s list but will instead strike the entire notice (cf. Carroad v Regensburg, 17 AD2d 734). Plaintiff’s notice for discovery and inspection of defendant’s premises, however, was proper under CPLR 3120 (subd La], par 1, cl [ii]). Gulotta, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.2d 824, 464 N.Y.S.2d 376, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartigan-v-acme-markets-inc-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack