Martin v. Nassau County Commission on Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martin v. Nassau County Commission on Human Rights

117 A.D.2d 656, 499 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52930

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.2d 656 (Martin v. Nassau County Commission on Human Rights) 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

Martin v. Nassau County Commission on Human Rights, 117 A.D.2d 656, 499 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52930 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), dated May 28, 1985, which denied their motion for a protective order striking the plaintiff’s notice for discovery and inspection.

Order modified, by granting the defendants’ motion for a protective order solely to the extent of (1) limiting items Nos. 8 and 10 of the plaintiff’s notice for discovery and inspection to the names, positions and business addresses of the employees specified therein, and (2) limiting items Nos. 9 and 16 thereof to those instances where defendant Lloyd was operating a motor vehicle. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The defendants’ time to comply with the notice for discovery and inspection is extended until 30 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry.

Certain items in plaintiff’s notice for discovery and inspection were either overbroad or not material and necessary to the action. Accordingly, the order appealed from, which denied defendant’s motion for a protective order, has been modified to the extent indicated (see generally, Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403; Rios v Donovan, 21 AD2d 409; Green v Carey Transp., 38 AD2d 711; Turner v Town of Amherst, 62 Misc 2d 257). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence 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, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), dated May 28, 1985, which denied their motion for a protective order striking the plaintiff’s notice for discovery and inspection.

Order modified, by granting the defendants’ motion for a protective order solely to the extent of (1) limiting items Nos. 8 and 10 of the plaintiff’s notice for discovery and inspection to the names, positions and business addresses of the employees specified therein, and (2) limiting items Nos. 9 and 16 thereof to those instances where defendant Lloyd was operating a motor vehicle. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The defendants’ time to comply with the notice for discovery and inspection is extended until 30 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry.

Certain items in plaintiff’s notice for discovery and inspection were either overbroad or not material and necessary to the action. Accordingly, the order appealed from, which denied defendant’s motion for a protective order, has been modified to the extent indicated (see generally, Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403; Rios v Donovan, 21 AD2d 409; Green v Carey Transp., 38 AD2d 711; Turner v Town of Amherst, 62 Misc 2d 257). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.2d 656, 499 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-nassau-county-commission-on-human-rights-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack