Liga v. Long Island Rail Road

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liga v. Long Island Rail Road

121 A.D.2d 606, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58588

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 23, 1986·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bambrick, J.), dated July 24, 1985, as directed them to comply with the plaintiffs’ combined demands for discovery and inspection, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated October 1, 1985, as, upon reargument and renewal, adhered to its original determination.

Appeal from the order dated July 24, 1985, dismissed. That order was superseded by the order dated October 1, 1985, made upon reargument and renewal.

Order dated October 1, 1985, affirmed insofar as appealed from. The plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs.

The defendants failed to timely move for a protective order (see, CPLR 3103, 3122). As the demands here are not palpably improper (see, e.g., Palmieri v Kilcourse, 91 AD2d 657; Scheinfeld v Burlant, 98 AD2d 603), and the defendants have failed to meet their burden of proving that the material sought is privileged (see, e.g., Viruet v City of New York, 97 AD2d 435, 436; Du Four v Blaw-Knox Corp., 89 AD2d 900, 901). We find that Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ cross motion for enforcement (see, Zambelis v Nicholas, 92 AD2d 936; Cipriano v Righter, 100 AD2d 923). Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Kooper, 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, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bambrick, J.), dated July 24, 1985, as directed them to comply with the plaintiffs’ combined demands for discovery and inspection, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated October 1, 1985, as, upon reargument and renewal, adhered to its original determination.

Appeal from the order dated July 24, 1985, dismissed. That order was superseded by the order dated October 1, 1985, made upon reargument and renewal.

Order dated October 1, 1985, affirmed insofar as appealed from. The plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs.

The defendants failed to timely move for a protective order (see, CPLR 3103, 3122). As the demands here are not palpably improper (see, e.g., Palmieri v Kilcourse, 91 AD2d 657; Scheinfeld v Burlant, 98 AD2d 603), and the defendants have failed to meet their burden of proving that the material sought is privileged (see, e.g., Viruet v City of New York, 97 AD2d 435, 436; Du Four v Blaw-Knox Corp., 89 AD2d 900, 901). We find that Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ cross motion for enforcement (see, Zambelis v Nicholas, 92 AD2d 936; Cipriano v Righter, 100 AD2d 923). Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Liga v. Long Island Rail Road, 121 A.D.2d 606, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58588 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

121 A.D.2d 606 (Liga v. Long Island Rail Road) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related