Marziano v. City of Yonkers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marziano v. City of Yonkers

105 A.D.2d 832, 481 N.Y.S.2d 755, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20953

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 832 (Marziano v. City of Yonkers) 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

Marziano v. City of Yonkers, 105 A.D.2d 832, 481 N.Y.S.2d 755, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20953 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In a wrongful death action arising out of a motorcycle accident, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Jiudice, J.), entered May 10, 1983, as, upon reargument, adhered to that part of the court’s original determination directing it to provide plaintiff’s counsel with copies of all expert reports based on an inspection not yet had.

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and upon reargument, that portion of the court’s original determination which directed defendant to provide expert reports to plaintiff’s counsel is stricken; order of the same court, dated October 26, 1982, amended accordingly.

The material sought by plaintiff is clearly material prepared for litigation which enjoys a privilege from disclosure except in certain circumstances not present here (see CPLR 3101, subd [d]; Rosado v Mercedes-Benz, 90 AD2d 515). Weinstein, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In a wrongful death action arising out of a motorcycle accident, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Jiudice, J.), entered May 10, 1983, as, upon reargument, adhered to that part of the court’s original determination directing it to provide plaintiff’s counsel with copies of all expert reports based on an inspection not yet had.

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and upon reargument, that portion of the court’s original determination which directed defendant to provide expert reports to plaintiff’s counsel is stricken; order of the same court, dated October 26, 1982, amended accordingly.

The material sought by plaintiff is clearly material prepared for litigation which enjoys a privilege from disclosure except in certain circumstances not present here (see CPLR 3101, subd [d]; Rosado v Mercedes-Benz, 90 AD2d 515). Weinstein, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 832, 481 N.Y.S.2d 755, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marziano-v-city-of-yonkers-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack