Mirabel v. State Farm Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mirabel v. State Farm Insurance

265 A.D.2d 310, 696 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9675

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 310 (Mirabel v. State Farm Insurance) 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

Mirabel v. State Farm Insurance, 265 A.D.2d 310, 696 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover the proceeds of an insurance policy, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated June 12, 1998, as denied that branch of its motion which was to direct the plaintiff to comply with items 1 through 6, 16, 26, and 27, of its notice for discovery and inspection.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof denying those branches of the motion which were to direct the plaintiff to respond to items 2, 3, and so much of item 16 as seeks production of copies of telephone bills for the plaintiff’s 1993 Mercedes Benz automobile from the date of the alleged theft up to and including December 18, 1995, and substituting therefor a provision granting those branches of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The information demanded in items 2 and 3 of the defendant’s notice for discovery and inspection, i.e., the plaintiff’s personal income tax returns and certain business tax returns, are material and relevant (see, CPLR 3101 [a]). As to the material demanded in item 16, certain car telephone bills, the plaintiff need only provide the bills from the date of the alleged theft up to and including December 18, 1995. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover the proceeds of an insurance policy, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated June 12, 1998, as denied that branch of its motion which was to direct the plaintiff to comply with items 1 through 6, 16, 26, and 27, of its notice for discovery and inspection.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof denying those branches of the motion which were to direct the plaintiff to respond to items 2, 3, and so much of item 16 as seeks production of copies of telephone bills for the plaintiff’s 1993 Mercedes Benz automobile from the date of the alleged theft up to and including December 18, 1995, and substituting therefor a provision granting those branches of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The information demanded in items 2 and 3 of the defendant’s notice for discovery and inspection, i.e., the plaintiff’s personal income tax returns and certain business tax returns, are material and relevant (see, CPLR 3101 [a]). As to the material demanded in item 16, certain car telephone bills, the plaintiff need only provide the bills from the date of the alleged theft up to and including December 18, 1995. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 310, 696 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mirabel-v-state-farm-insurance-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack