In re MacDonald

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re MacDonald

149 A.D.2d 923, 543 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5921

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

DecidedApril 14, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A.D.2d 923 (In re MacDonald) 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

In re MacDonald, 149 A.D.2d 923, 543 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Special Term erred in granting the application for preaction disclosure (CPLR 3102 [c]) because the papers upon which it was based contained mere conclusory statements of suspicion and conjecture which are insufficient (see, Emmrich v Technology for Information Mgt., 91 AD2d 777; Stewart v Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 3 AD2d 582, 583) and because petitioner has failed to establish that he has a good cause of action (see, L-Tron Corp. v Davco Sys., 60 AD2d 25, 28; cf., Matter of Dack [Beni Broadcasting], 101 Misc 2d 490, 496). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Francis, J. —preaction discovery.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Special Term erred in granting the application for preaction disclosure (CPLR 3102 [c]) because the papers upon which it was based contained mere conclusory statements of suspicion and conjecture which are insufficient (see, Emmrich v Technology for Information Mgt., 91 AD2d 777; Stewart v Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 3 AD2d 582, 583) and because petitioner has failed to establish that he has a good cause of action (see, L-Tron Corp. v Davco Sys., 60 AD2d 25, 28; cf., Matter of Dack [Beni Broadcasting], 101 Misc 2d 490, 496). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Francis, J. —preaction discovery.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 923, 543 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-macdonald-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack