In re MacDonald

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

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

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).

149 A.D.2d 923 (In re MacDonald) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stewart v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co.
3 A.D.2d 582 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1957)
L-Tron Corp. v. Davco Systems, Inc.
60 A.D.2d 25 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Emmrich v. Technology for Information Management, Inc.
91 A.D.2d 777 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
In re Dack
101 Misc. 2d 490 (New York Supreme Court, 1979)