Kashelkar v. Dave

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kashelkar v. Dave

31 A.D.3d 341, 820 N.Y.S.2d 11

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

DecidedJuly 27, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 A.D.3d 341 (Kashelkar v. Dave) 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

Kashelkar v. Dave, 31 A.D.3d 341, 820 N.Y.S.2d 11 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard E Braun, J.), entered January 31, 2003, which partially granted the Sandback defendants’ motion for a protective order, and order, same court and Justice, entered June 24, 2003, which removed the action to Civil Court, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs notice to admit was properly vacated as it improperly sought information about the existence of insurance, a matter that has nothing to do with the elements of plaintiffs claims herein for civil rights and civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations (see Wolin v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of N.Y., 304 AD2d 348 [2003]). Our review of the record indicates that the stricken discovery demands were overly broad and burdensome. The motion court had authority to remove the action to Civil Court without the parties’ consent (CPLR 325 [d]; 22 NYCRR 202.13 [a]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Williams, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard E Braun, J.), entered January 31, 2003, which partially granted the Sandback defendants’ motion for a protective order, and order, same court and Justice, entered June 24, 2003, which removed the action to Civil Court, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs notice to admit was properly vacated as it improperly sought information about the existence of insurance, a matter that has nothing to do with the elements of plaintiffs claims herein for civil rights and civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations (see Wolin v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of N.Y., 304 AD2d 348 [2003]). Our review of the record indicates that the stricken discovery demands were overly broad and burdensome. The motion court had authority to remove the action to Civil Court without the parties’ consent (CPLR 325 [d]; 22 NYCRR 202.13 [a]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Williams, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.3d 341, 820 N.Y.S.2d 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kashelkar-v-dave-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack