Penn Plaza Venture v. Glens Falls Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Penn Plaza Venture v. Glens Falls Insurance

32 A.D.2d 768, 301 N.Y.S.2d 686, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3663

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

DecidedJune 19, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 768 (Penn Plaza Venture v. Glens Falls 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

Penn Plaza Venture v. Glens Falls Insurance, 32 A.D.2d 768, 301 N.Y.S.2d 686, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3663 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order filed October -30,1968, denying in part defendant’s motion for a protective order in respect of .the ■ discovery and inspection of reports made by adjusters and others in the investigation of a fire loss, unanimously modified on the law and the facts to the extent of excluding writings which express opinions of experts, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Defendant consents to the discovery and inspection of certain adjusters’ reports. Reports of defendant’s experts are excluded from such discovery and inspection by the provisions of CPLR 3101 (subds. [e], [d]). (See Kent v. Maryland Cas. Co., 25 A D 2d 653; Dialand Elec. Sales Corp. v. Worcester Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 5 A D 2d 1047; Naiman v. Niagara Falls Ins. Co., 283 App. Div. 1016; 86 ALR 2d 145.) Concur—■ Capozzoli, J. P., Tilzer, Markewieh, Nunez and McNally, JJ.

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

Order filed October -30,1968, denying in part defendant’s motion for a protective order in respect of .the ■ discovery and inspection of reports made by adjusters and others in the investigation of a fire loss, unanimously modified on the law and the facts to the extent of excluding writings which express opinions of experts, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Defendant consents to the discovery and inspection of certain adjusters’ reports. Reports of defendant’s experts are excluded from such discovery and inspection by the provisions of CPLR 3101 (subds. [e], [d]). (See Kent v. Maryland Cas. Co., 25 A D 2d 653; Dialand Elec. Sales Corp. v. Worcester Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 5 A D 2d 1047; Naiman v. Niagara Falls Ins. Co., 283 App. Div. 1016; 86 ALR 2d 145.) Concur—■ Capozzoli, J. P., Tilzer, Markewieh, Nunez and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 768, 301 N.Y.S.2d 686, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penn-plaza-venture-v-glens-falls-insurance-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack