Kraft v. Sinoway

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kraft v. Sinoway

186 A.D.2d 441

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 441 (Kraft v. Sinoway) 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

Kraft v. Sinoway, 186 A.D.2d 441 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis N. Pécora, J.), entered January 18, 1992, which denied [442]*442defendants’ motion for a protective order against certain of plaintiffs interrogatories, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to grant the protective order as to matters antedating January 5, 1989 and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

While we agree with the IAS Court that the information sought would be useful in determining whether defendants’ relationship was such as to make two or more of them liable for the age discrimination alleged by plaintiff (see, Ennist v Shepherd, 117 AD2d 580), the demand that such information be provided back to 1975 is burdensome, and we modify to limit disclosure to the two-year period prior to the accrual of the cause of action. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis N. Pécora, J.), entered January 18, 1992, which denied [442]*442defendants’ motion for a protective order against certain of plaintiffs interrogatories, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to grant the protective order as to matters antedating January 5, 1989 and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

While we agree with the IAS Court that the information sought would be useful in determining whether defendants’ relationship was such as to make two or more of them liable for the age discrimination alleged by plaintiff (see, Ennist v Shepherd, 117 AD2d 580), the demand that such information be provided back to 1975 is burdensome, and we modify to limit disclosure to the two-year period prior to the accrual of the cause of action. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kraft-v-sinoway-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack