Lewis v. Hynes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lewis v. Hynes

208 A.D.2d 731, 617 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9866

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 17, 1994·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondent to disclose certain documents to the petitioner under Public Officers Law article 6, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), entered January 4, 1993, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The court acted properly in denying the petition to compel the respondent to disclose certain documents, since the respondent has produced or addressed all of the requested documents which he had in his possession (see, Public Officers Law § 89 [3]; Matter of Ahlers v Dillon, 143 AD2d 225, 226; Matter of Adams v Hirsch, 182 AD2d 583). With regard to the requested documents which the respondent has not yet produced, we note that the respondent has not denied the petitioner’s request but has simply suggested that the petitioner narrow his list so as to expedite review and the production of the requested documents. Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondent to disclose certain documents to the petitioner under Public Officers Law article 6, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), entered January 4, 1993, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The court acted properly in denying the petition to compel the respondent to disclose certain documents, since the respondent has produced or addressed all of the requested documents which he had in his possession (see, Public Officers Law § 89 [3]; Matter of Ahlers v Dillon, 143 AD2d 225, 226; Matter of Adams v Hirsch, 182 AD2d 583). With regard to the requested documents which the respondent has not yet produced, we note that the respondent has not denied the petitioner’s request but has simply suggested that the petitioner narrow his list so as to expedite review and the production of the requested documents. Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Lewis v. Hynes, 208 A.D.2d 731, 617 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

208 A.D.2d 731 (Lewis v. Hynes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related