Lam v. Tang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lam v. Tang

199 A.D.2d 44, 605 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11695

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 44 (Lam v. Tang) 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

Lam v. Tang, 199 A.D.2d 44, 605 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland De-Grasse, J.), entered on or about April 1, 1992, which denied the plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion is granted, without costs.

Nothing in the preliminary conference order indicated that [45]*45the parties waived any right to further discovery (see, PinterZwicker Elec. Co. v Alliance Elec., 175 AD2d 737). The plaintiffs’ request for additional discovery was timely and the information requested was material and necessary. Moreover, the document request was neither vague nor overbroad (supra). Finally, although counsel’s affirmation that a good faith effort was made to resolve the issues (Uniform Rules for Trial Cts [22 NYCRR] § 202.7 [c]) could have been more detailed, under the circumstances presented, we find that the affirmation was sufficient.

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland De-Grasse, J.), entered on or about April 1, 1992, which denied the plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion is granted, without costs.

Nothing in the preliminary conference order indicated that [45]*45the parties waived any right to further discovery (see, PinterZwicker Elec. Co. v Alliance Elec., 175 AD2d 737). The plaintiffs’ request for additional discovery was timely and the information requested was material and necessary. Moreover, the document request was neither vague nor overbroad (supra). Finally, although counsel’s affirmation that a good faith effort was made to resolve the issues (Uniform Rules for Trial Cts [22 NYCRR] § 202.7 [c]) could have been more detailed, under the circumstances presented, we find that the affirmation was sufficient.

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 44, 605 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lam-v-tang-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack