Orlando v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Orlando v. City of New York

306 A.D.2d 453, 761 N.Y.S.2d 528

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

DecidedJune 23, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 453 (Orlando v. City of New York) 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

Orlando v. City of New York, 306 A.D.2d 453, 761 N.Y.S.2d 528 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated May 30, 2002, as denied those branches of his motion which were to strike the answer of the defendant City of New York, or, in the alternative, to compel certain disclosure from that defendant.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[454]*454The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to compel the production of maintenance and other requested records that postdated the plaintiffs accident (see Watson v FHE Servs., 257 AD2d 618 [1999]; Cleland v 60-02 Woodside Corp., 221 AD2d 307, 308 [1995]; cf. DeRoche v Methodist Hosp. of Brooklyn, 249 AD2d 438, 439 [1998]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated May 30, 2002, as denied those branches of his motion which were to strike the answer of the defendant City of New York, or, in the alternative, to compel certain disclosure from that defendant.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[454]*454The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to compel the production of maintenance and other requested records that postdated the plaintiffs accident (see Watson v FHE Servs., 257 AD2d 618 [1999]; Cleland v 60-02 Woodside Corp., 221 AD2d 307, 308 [1995]; cf. DeRoche v Methodist Hosp. of Brooklyn, 249 AD2d 438, 439 [1998]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 453, 761 N.Y.S.2d 528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orlando-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack