Menkes v. Beth Abraham Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Menkes v. Beth Abraham Services

89 A.D.3d 647, 933 N.Y.2d 548

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 29, 2011·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in grant[648]*648ing the motion, as plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the information sought from the former director could not be obtained from other sources, such as the nursing home’s own records (see Connolly v Napoli, Kaiser & Bern, LLP, 81 AD3d 530, 531 [2011]; Kooper v Kooper, 74 AD3d 6, 15, 16-17 [2010]). In view of the foregoing, we need not determine whether the disclosure sought is material and necessary. Concur — Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Renwick, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

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

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in grant[648]*648ing the motion, as plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the information sought from the former director could not be obtained from other sources, such as the nursing home’s own records (see Connolly v Napoli, Kaiser & Bern, LLP, 81 AD3d 530, 531 [2011]; Kooper v Kooper, 74 AD3d 6, 15, 16-17 [2010]). In view of the foregoing, we need not determine whether the disclosure sought is material and necessary. Concur — Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Renwick, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Menkes v. Beth Abraham Services, 89 A.D.3d 647, 933 N.Y.2d 548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

89 A.D.3d 647 (Menkes v. Beth Abraham Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related