Medina v. 31 Avni Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Medina v. 31 Avni Realty Corp.

244 A.D.2d 287, 664 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11884

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

DecidedNovember 25, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 287 (Medina v. 31 Avni Realty Corp.) 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

Medina v. 31 Avni Realty Corp., 244 A.D.2d 287, 664 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx [288]*288County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered November 27, 1996, which denied defendants’ motion to strike the action from the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants’ outstanding discovery requests did not require a response because the information sought is “palpably improper” (Haenel v November & November, 172 AD2d 182, 183). No possible use can be made of plaintiffs tax returns and W-2’s where she does not seek to recover for lost wages; or for medical records that involve different injuries than those claimed herein; or for health insurance policies not in effect as of the date of the accident; or for her school records. Plaintiffs sworn statement at her deposition that she does not know the name of the person who approached her after she fell sufficiently demonstrated her inability to respond to the request for his name and address. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx [288]*288County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered November 27, 1996, which denied defendants’ motion to strike the action from the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants’ outstanding discovery requests did not require a response because the information sought is “palpably improper” (Haenel v November & November, 172 AD2d 182, 183). No possible use can be made of plaintiffs tax returns and W-2’s where she does not seek to recover for lost wages; or for medical records that involve different injuries than those claimed herein; or for health insurance policies not in effect as of the date of the accident; or for her school records. Plaintiffs sworn statement at her deposition that she does not know the name of the person who approached her after she fell sufficiently demonstrated her inability to respond to the request for his name and address. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 287, 664 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medina-v-31-avni-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack