Katz v. State of New York Department of Correctional Services

64 A.D.2d 900, 407 N.Y.S.2d 967, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12789
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 7, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 64 A.D.2d 900 (Katz v. State of New York Department of Correctional Services) 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. State of New York Department of Correctional Services, 64 A.D.2d 900, 407 N.Y.S.2d 967, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

—In a proceeding, inter alia, for disclosure "to aid in arbitration” (see CPLR 3102, subd [c]), the State Department of Correctional Services appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered October 14, 1977, as granted limited disclosure regarding certain items and stayed the arbitration proceeding pending such disclosure. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, application for disclosure denied and stay vacated. Special Term correctly noted that courts will not order disclosure to aid in arbitration " 'except under extraordinary circumstances’ ” (De Sapio v Kohlmeyer, 35 NY2d 402, 406; Matter of Katz [Burkin], 3 AD2d 238, 239). As we recently stated in Matter of Jamaica Hosp. v Vogel & Strunk (57 AD2d 843), "Disclosure is to be sparingly allowed in arbitration proceedings.” It is our opinion that extraordinary circumstances are absent in this case. The "Notice of Discipline” sufficiently apprised Robert Katz of the items of contraband allegedly found in his automobile. We also note that "the judicious use of a continuance” by the arbitrator may offset the effects of any surprise evidence and eliminate [901]*901any potential injustice (see 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 7505.06, p 75-129; see, also, Matter of Motor Vehicle Acc. Ind. Corp. [McCabe], 19 AD2d 349, 353). Martuscello, J. P., Damiani, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Weisz v. Weisz
42 Misc. 3d 391 (New York Supreme Court, 2013)
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. United Diagnostic Imaging, P.C.
73 A.D.3d 791 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Goldsborough v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
217 A.D.2d 546 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Moock v. Emanuel
99 A.D.2d 1003 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Guilford Mills, Inc. v. Rice Pudding, Ltd.
90 A.D.2d 468 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wernick
90 A.D.2d 519 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 A.D.2d 900, 407 N.Y.S.2d 967, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katz-v-state-of-new-york-department-of-correctional-services-nyappdiv-1978.