Lea v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lea v. New York City Transit Authority

57 A.D.3d 269, 867 N.Y.2d 918

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 9, 2008·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

On appeal, defendant does not challenge the demands for its station supervisor’s log and deposition. Concerning the demands that do remain in issue on appeal, they are all palpably improper (see Haller v North Riverside Partners, 189 AD2d 615, 616 [1993], citing Alaten Co. v Solil Mgt. Corp., 181 AD2d 466 [1992]; cf. Sonsini v Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Diseases, 262 AD2d 185, 186-187 [1999]), and thus production thereof should not be compelled despite defendant’s failure to timely object thereto under CPLR 3122 (see Haller; Perez v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 271 AD2d 251 [2000]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Gonzalez, Nardelli, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.

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

On appeal, defendant does not challenge the demands for its station supervisor’s log and deposition. Concerning the demands that do remain in issue on appeal, they are all palpably improper (see Haller v North Riverside Partners, 189 AD2d 615, 616 [1993], citing Alaten Co. v Solil Mgt. Corp., 181 AD2d 466 [1992]; cf. Sonsini v Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Diseases, 262 AD2d 185, 186-187 [1999]), and thus production thereof should not be compelled despite defendant’s failure to timely object thereto under CPLR 3122 (see Haller; Perez v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 271 AD2d 251 [2000]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Gonzalez, Nardelli, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.

Lea v. New York City Transit Authority, 57 A.D.3d 269, 867 N.Y.2d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

57 A.D.3d 269 (Lea v. New York City Transit Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related