Lentz v. Nic's Gym Incorporated

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lentz v. Nic's Gym Incorporated

76 A.D.2d 998, 907 N.Y.S.2d 691

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 76 A.D.2d 998 (Lentz v. Nic's Gym Incorporated) 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

Lentz v. Nic's Gym Incorporated, 76 A.D.2d 998, 907 N.Y.S.2d 691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated July 7, 2009, which granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to direct it to allow the plaintiff to inspect the gym mats involved in the subject accident, and denied its cross motion for a protective order.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

CFLR 3101 (a) is to be construed liberally so that there should be disclosure of any material that is even arguably relevant (see Shanahan v Bambino, 271 AD2d 519 [2000]). However, “unlimited disclosure is not required, and supervision of disclosure is generally left to the trial court’s broad discretion” (Palermo Mason Constr. v Aark Holding Corp., 300 AD2d 460, 461 [2002] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Silcox v City of New York, 233 AD2d 494 [1996]). The essential test is one based on [999]*999“usefulness and reason” (Andon v 302-304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 NY2d 740, 746 [2000] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to direct the defendant to allow the plaintiff to inspect the gym mats which allegedly caused her to fall and sustain injuries, and in denying the defendant’s cross motion for a protective order. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated July 7, 2009, which granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to direct it to allow the plaintiff to inspect the gym mats involved in the subject accident, and denied its cross motion for a protective order.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

CFLR 3101 (a) is to be construed liberally so that there should be disclosure of any material that is even arguably relevant (see Shanahan v Bambino, 271 AD2d 519 [2000]). However, “unlimited disclosure is not required, and supervision of disclosure is generally left to the trial court’s broad discretion” (Palermo Mason Constr. v Aark Holding Corp., 300 AD2d 460, 461 [2002] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Silcox v City of New York, 233 AD2d 494 [1996]). The essential test is one based on [999]*999“usefulness and reason” (Andon v 302-304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 NY2d 740, 746 [2000] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to direct the defendant to allow the plaintiff to inspect the gym mats which allegedly caused her to fall and sustain injuries, and in denying the defendant’s cross motion for a protective order. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 998, 907 N.Y.S.2d 691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lentz-v-nics-gym-incorporated-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack