Lang v. Abbott Laboratories

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lang v. Abbott Laboratories

54 A.D.2d 582, 387 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13936

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 582 (Lang v. Abbott Laboratories) 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

Lang v. Abbott Laboratories, 54 A.D.2d 582, 387 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13936 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a products liability action, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 20, 1976, as (1) granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the defendant to submit to an examination before trial and to produce certain documents thereat and (2) denied its cross motion to limit and terminate all discovery proceedings. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Any agreement that the plaintiffs’ attorney may have entered into with the attorney for the defendant, not to seek further disclosure, was apparently the result of his mistaken belief that certain information which was essential to his clients’ case was otherwise available. Under the circumstances presented herein, this is not a sufficient reason for depriving the plaintiffs of their right to full disclosure (see Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143). Latham, Acting P. J., Hargett, Rabin, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a products liability action, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 20, 1976, as (1) granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the defendant to submit to an examination before trial and to produce certain documents thereat and (2) denied its cross motion to limit and terminate all discovery proceedings. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Any agreement that the plaintiffs’ attorney may have entered into with the attorney for the defendant, not to seek further disclosure, was apparently the result of his mistaken belief that certain information which was essential to his clients’ case was otherwise available. Under the circumstances presented herein, this is not a sufficient reason for depriving the plaintiffs of their right to full disclosure (see Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143). Latham, Acting P. J., Hargett, Rabin, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 582, 387 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lang-v-abbott-laboratories-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack