Mohn Supply Co. v. Sisters of St. Joseph of Rochester, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mohn Supply Co. v. Sisters of St. Joseph of Rochester, Inc.

78 A.D.2d 1012, 433 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13797

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1980

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.2d 1012 (Mohn Supply Co. v. Sisters of St. Joseph of Rochester, Inc.) 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

Mohn Supply Co. v. Sisters of St. Joseph of Rochester, Inc., 78 A.D.2d 1012, 433 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: In this action for the delivery of goods and services covering a period from 1965 to 1977, defendant interposed an affirmative defense asserting that plaintiff is guilty of laches in that its conduct led defendant to believe that the goods and services delivered “were in the nature of gifts and benevolences made by the plaintiff to the defendant. ” The suit is for supplies and maintenance provided for the operation of a swimming pool on defendant’s property. Plaintiff sought to take the deposition of Sister Mary Magdalene, who had the responsibility for pool maintenance and of Mother Agnes Cecelia, a superior of defendant corporation, with respect to a meeting she had with representatives of plaintiff concerning statements previously submitted for goods and services. Plaintiff claims that this meeting is critical on the issue of the affirmative defense. Defendant has already had discovery of plaintiff with regard to its affirmative defense. CPLR 3101 (subd [a]) requires full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action. “Disclosure is required as to all evidence relevant to the case and as to all information reasonably calculated to lead to relevant evidence” (Siegel, New York Practice, § 344, p 422; see, also, Allen v Crowell-CollierPub. Co., 21 NY2d 403). Where the information sought in good faith will have a possible use as evidence in chief or in rebuttal, or for cross-examination, it falls within the scope of the statute as “material and necessary” and discovery should be permitted (see Maloney vBuffalo Sav. Bank, 41 AD2d 591; 3A Weinstein-Kom-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3101.07). Special [1013]*1013Term properly granted the application to examine Sister Mary Magdalene but erred in denying the application to depose Mother Agnes Cecelia. (Appeal from order of Monroe Supreme Court — discovery.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: In this action for the delivery of goods and services covering a period from 1965 to 1977, defendant interposed an affirmative defense asserting that plaintiff is guilty of laches in that its conduct led defendant to believe that the goods and services delivered “were in the nature of gifts and benevolences made by the plaintiff to the defendant. ” The suit is for supplies and maintenance provided for the operation of a swimming pool on defendant’s property. Plaintiff sought to take the deposition of Sister Mary Magdalene, who had the responsibility for pool maintenance and of Mother Agnes Cecelia, a superior of defendant corporation, with respect to a meeting she had with representatives of plaintiff concerning statements previously submitted for goods and services. Plaintiff claims that this meeting is critical on the issue of the affirmative defense. Defendant has already had discovery of plaintiff with regard to its affirmative defense. CPLR 3101 (subd [a]) requires full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action. “Disclosure is required as to all evidence relevant to the case and as to all information reasonably calculated to lead to relevant evidence” (Siegel, New York Practice, § 344, p 422; see, also, Allen v Crowell-CollierPub. Co., 21 NY2d 403). Where the information sought in good faith will have a possible use as evidence in chief or in rebuttal, or for cross-examination, it falls within the scope of the statute as “material and necessary” and discovery should be permitted (see Maloney vBuffalo Sav. Bank, 41 AD2d 591; 3A Weinstein-Kom-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3101.07). Special [1013]*1013Term properly granted the application to examine Sister Mary Magdalene but erred in denying the application to depose Mother Agnes Cecelia. (Appeal from order of Monroe Supreme Court — discovery.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 1012, 433 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mohn-supply-co-v-sisters-of-st-joseph-of-rochester-inc-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack