Peterson v. Zuercher

209 A.D.2d 1045, 619 N.Y.S.2d 1005
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Peterson v. Zuercher. Read the opinion of the Court — 198 A.D.2d 797

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order and denied defendants’ cross motion for an order compelling plaintiffs to comply with the discovery demands. Defendants made no factual showing of special, unusual or extraordinary circumstances warranting further discovery (see, Gould v Marone, 197 AD2d 862; S.A.B. Enters. v Village of Athens, 178 AD2d 820; Spinosa v Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 114 AD2d 633; Bandike Assocs. v B.B.M. Realty Corp., 55 AD2d 999). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.—Discovery.) Present—Green, J. P., Balio, Wesley, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

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

Peterson v. Zuercher, 209 A.D.2d 1045, 619 N.Y.S.2d 1005 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

209 A.D.2d 1045 (Peterson v. Zuercher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bandike Associates, Inc. v. B. B. M. Realty Corp.
55 A.D.2d 999 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Spinosa v. Hartford Fire Insurance
114 A.D.2d 633 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
S.A.B. Enterprises Inc. v. Village of Athens
178 A.D.2d 820 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Gould v. Marone
197 A.D.2d 862 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)