Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Heimowitz v. Handler, Kleiman, Sukenik & Segal, P. C.

Heimowitz v. Handler, Kleiman, Sukenik & Segal, P. C.

51 A.D.2d 702, 380 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11151
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 17, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 702 (Heimowitz v. Handler, Kleiman, Sukenik & Segal, P. C.) 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
Heimowitz v. Handler, Kleiman, Sukenik & Segal, P. C., 51 A.D.2d 702, 380 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11151 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on October 14, 1975, which denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an ex parte order directing plaintiff to post security for costs and which granted defendant’s cross motion for a protective order striking plaintiff’s interrogatories, unanimously affirmed, with $40 costs and disbursements to defendant-respondent. Since plaintiff has filed a bond with the clerk of the Supreme Court, the appeal with respect to the posting of security for costs [703]*703has become academic. Special Term properly vacated the interrogatories served by plaintiff. The interrogatories contain many irrelevant, unduly broad and unreasonably oppressive questions, including some which obviously call for a breach of the attorney-client privilege. Under the circumstances, the appropriate remedy is a vacatur of the entire demand rather than any attempted pruning by the court. (See Woodmere Academy v Steinberg, 51 AD2d 514; Carroad v Regensburg, 17 AD2d 734.) Because of the palpably improper nature of the interrogatories, as a whole, Special Term correctly exercised its discretion in entertaining the cross motion, although more than 10 days had passed for objections as provided in CPLR 3133. Concur—Stevens, P. J„, Murphy, Silverman, Capozzoli and Nunez, JJ.

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

Related

Village of Mamaroneck v. State
16 A.D.3d 674 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Kamerman v. Kolt
187 A.D.2d 564 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Breslauer v. Dan
150 A.D.2d 324 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Handy v. Geften Realty, Inc.
129 A.D.2d 556 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Vancek v. International Dynetics Corp.
78 A.D.2d 842 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Lane—The Real Estate Department Store, Inc. v. Ziv Chestnut Realty Corp.
76 A.D.2d 902 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Hall v. Craig
69 A.D.2d 896 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Sol Mor Novelty Co. v. Northwestern National Insurance
60 A.D.2d 543 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Blasi v. Marine Midland Bank of Southeastern New York
59 A.D.2d 932 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Itzkoff v. Allstate Insurance
59 A.D.2d 854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Bihari v. UpJohn Co.
58 A.D.2d 569 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Blotcher v. Upjohn Co.
54 A.D.2d 851 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 A.D.2d 702, 380 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heimowitz-v-handler-kleiman-sukenik-segal-p-c-nyappdiv-1976.