Post v. Great Eastern Management Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Post v. Great Eastern Management Corp.

52 A.D.2d 761, 382 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12518

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

DecidedMay 4, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 761 (Post v. Great Eastern Management Corp.) 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

Post v. Great Eastern Management Corp., 52 A.D.2d 761, 382 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12518 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 22, 1975, unanimously affirmed, with $40 costs and disbursements to respondent Emil R. Post. Defendant’s motion for a protective order vacating Items Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of plaintiff’s notice of discovery and inspection was properly denied. The statements of defendant’s employees which were sought by said notice were obtained by the Burns International Security Services, Inc., prior to the institution of plaintiff’s suit, for the purpose of disciplining careless employees and to improve the efficiency of defendant’s business. Thus they are documents prepared for defendant in the regular course of its business (Weisgold v Kiamesha Concord, 51 Misc 2d 456) rather than documents prepared for litigation. Hence, they are subject to discovery [762]*762(Stewart v Roosevelt Hosp., 22 AD2d 648; Bloom v New York City Tr. Auth., 20 AD2d 687) and not to be protected under CPLR 3101 (subd [d]). (See Kandel v Tocher, 22 AD2d 513.) Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Kupferman, Birns and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 22, 1975, unanimously affirmed, with $40 costs and disbursements to respondent Emil R. Post. Defendant’s motion for a protective order vacating Items Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of plaintiff’s notice of discovery and inspection was properly denied. The statements of defendant’s employees which were sought by said notice were obtained by the Burns International Security Services, Inc., prior to the institution of plaintiff’s suit, for the purpose of disciplining careless employees and to improve the efficiency of defendant’s business. Thus they are documents prepared for defendant in the regular course of its business (Weisgold v Kiamesha Concord, 51 Misc 2d 456) rather than documents prepared for litigation. Hence, they are subject to discovery [762]*762(Stewart v Roosevelt Hosp., 22 AD2d 648; Bloom v New York City Tr. Auth., 20 AD2d 687) and not to be protected under CPLR 3101 (subd [d]). (See Kandel v Tocher, 22 AD2d 513.) Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Kupferman, Birns and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 761, 382 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/post-v-great-eastern-management-corp-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack