Lakes v. Lavelle School for the Blind

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lakes v. Lavelle School for the Blind

61 A.D.3d 524, 875 N.Y.S.2d 896

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

DecidedApril 16, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.3d 524 (Lakes v. Lavelle School for the Blind) 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

Lakes v. Lavelle School for the Blind, 61 A.D.3d 524, 875 N.Y.S.2d 896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered August 19, 2008, which granted plaintiffs motion for disclosure of certain material and denied defendant Lavelle School for the Blind’s cross motion for a protective order as to the material sought, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, plaintiffs motion denied, and defendant’s cross motion granted.

Defendant demonstrated that the reports sought by plaintiffs were prepared in anticipation of litigation (CPLR 3101 [d] [2]). Plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing that he has “substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the case and is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means” (id.). Concur— Andrias, J.R, Nardelli, McGuire, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered August 19, 2008, which granted plaintiffs motion for disclosure of certain material and denied defendant Lavelle School for the Blind’s cross motion for a protective order as to the material sought, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, plaintiffs motion denied, and defendant’s cross motion granted.

Defendant demonstrated that the reports sought by plaintiffs were prepared in anticipation of litigation (CPLR 3101 [d] [2]). Plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing that he has “substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the case and is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means” (id.). Concur— Andrias, J.R, Nardelli, McGuire, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 524, 875 N.Y.S.2d 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lakes-v-lavelle-school-for-the-blind-nyappdiv-2009.