Prep v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Prep v. State

91 A.D.2d 863, 458 N.Y.S.2d 378, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19777

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 91 A.D.2d 863 (Prep v. State) 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

Prep v. State, 91 A.D.2d 863, 458 N.Y.S.2d 378, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19777 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The order appealed from, granting claimant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3111 to produce certain materials to be used in conjunction with the examination of witnesses [864]*864at an examination before trial, should be affirmed. The materials requested were sufficiently described. CPLR 3111, unlike CPLR 3120, does not require that the materials be specifically identified. The description need only be as reasonable as may be expected under the circumstances (Melnick v Melnick, 85 AD2d 531; Orange & Rockland Utilities v Town of Clarkstown, 64 AD2d 919; see, also, Plati v Eastman Kodak Co., 284 App Div 1021, decided under the predecessor section to CPLR 3111, Civ Prac Act, § 296). (Appeal from order of Court of Claims, McMahon, J. — disclosure.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The order appealed from, granting claimant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3111 to produce certain materials to be used in conjunction with the examination of witnesses [864]*864at an examination before trial, should be affirmed. The materials requested were sufficiently described. CPLR 3111, unlike CPLR 3120, does not require that the materials be specifically identified. The description need only be as reasonable as may be expected under the circumstances (Melnick v Melnick, 85 AD2d 531; Orange & Rockland Utilities v Town of Clarkstown, 64 AD2d 919; see, also, Plati v Eastman Kodak Co., 284 App Div 1021, decided under the predecessor section to CPLR 3111, Civ Prac Act, § 296). (Appeal from order of Court of Claims, McMahon, J. — disclosure.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.2d 863, 458 N.Y.S.2d 378, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prep-v-state-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack