Katz v. Robinson, Silverman, Pearce, Aronsohn & Berman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Katz v. Robinson, Silverman, Pearce, Aronsohn & Berman

222 A.D.2d 322, 636 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13305

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 322 (Katz v. Robinson, Silverman, Pearce, Aronsohn & Berman) 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

Katz v. Robinson, Silverman, Pearce, Aronsohn & Berman, 222 A.D.2d 322, 636 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13305 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered April 4, 1995, which denied plaintiffs motion to compel disclosure and granted defendant’s cross motion for a protective order, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered December 15, 1994, unanimously dismissed as academic, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the matters as to which plaintiff seeks disclosure have no conceivable relevance to the issue of whether defendant deviated from good and accepted professional practice. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered April 4, 1995, which denied plaintiffs motion to compel disclosure and granted defendant’s cross motion for a protective order, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered December 15, 1994, unanimously dismissed as academic, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the matters as to which plaintiff seeks disclosure have no conceivable relevance to the issue of whether defendant deviated from good and accepted professional practice. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 322, 636 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katz-v-robinson-silverman-pearce-aronsohn-berman-nyappdiv-1995.