Port Washington Tennis Academy, Inc. v. United States Tennis Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Port Washington Tennis Academy, Inc. v. United States Tennis Ass'n

196 A.D.2d 839, 603 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8584

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 196 A.D.2d 839 (Port Washington Tennis Academy, Inc. v. United States Tennis Ass'n) 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

Port Washington Tennis Academy, Inc. v. United States Tennis Ass'n, 196 A.D.2d 839, 603 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8584 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance and a declaratory judgment, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated July 1, 1991, as denied that branch of its motion which was to vacate requests no. 4 and 7 through 13 of the defendant’s first notice of discovery and inspection.

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

The information sought by requests no. 7 through 13 in the defendant’s first notice of discovery and inspection was material and relevant in the defense of the action and thus the proper subject of disclosure (CPLR 3101 [a]).

Moreover, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the material sought in request no. 4 was prepared in anticipation of litigation by or for another party or by or for that party’s representative and that it therefore was entitled to the qualified privilege set forth in CPLR 3101 (d) (2). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance and a declaratory judgment, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated July 1, 1991, as denied that branch of its motion which was to vacate requests no. 4 and 7 through 13 of the defendant’s first notice of discovery and inspection.

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

The information sought by requests no. 7 through 13 in the defendant’s first notice of discovery and inspection was material and relevant in the defense of the action and thus the proper subject of disclosure (CPLR 3101 [a]).

Moreover, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the material sought in request no. 4 was prepared in anticipation of litigation by or for another party or by or for that party’s representative and that it therefore was entitled to the qualified privilege set forth in CPLR 3101 (d) (2). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 A.D.2d 839, 603 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/port-washington-tennis-academy-inc-v-united-states-tennis-assn-nyappdiv-1993.