Reno v. Mitts & Merrill, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reno v. Mitts & Merrill, Inc.

146 A.D.2d 620, 538 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 401

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 146 A.D.2d 620 (Reno v. Mitts & Merrill, Inc.) 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

Reno v. Mitts & Merrill, Inc., 146 A.D.2d 620, 538 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (DiNoto, J.), dated September 9, 1987, which denied their motion for a protective order and granted the defendant’s cross motion to compel compliance with its notice of discovery and inspection.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s cross motion is denied, and the plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order is granted.

Since the action at bar was commenced prior to July 1, 1985, the Supreme Court erred in concluding that the provisions of CPLR 3101 (d), as amended in 1985 (see, L 1985, ch 294, § 25), were applicable to the defendant’s notice of discovery and inspection (see, McKinstry v Werner Mach. Co., 133 AD2d 361, 362; 3A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3101.52). Moreover, our review of the record reveals that the defendant has failed to demonstrate the existence of such circumstances under the former provisions of CPLR 3101 (d) (1), as to warrant limited disclosure of the experts’ reports prepared for the plaintiffs. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Kunzeman and Hooper, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (DiNoto, J.), dated September 9, 1987, which denied their motion for a protective order and granted the defendant’s cross motion to compel compliance with its notice of discovery and inspection.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s cross motion is denied, and the plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order is granted.

Since the action at bar was commenced prior to July 1, 1985, the Supreme Court erred in concluding that the provisions of CPLR 3101 (d), as amended in 1985 (see, L 1985, ch 294, § 25), were applicable to the defendant’s notice of discovery and inspection (see, McKinstry v Werner Mach. Co., 133 AD2d 361, 362; 3A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3101.52). Moreover, our review of the record reveals that the defendant has failed to demonstrate the existence of such circumstances under the former provisions of CPLR 3101 (d) (1), as to warrant limited disclosure of the experts’ reports prepared for the plaintiffs. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Kunzeman and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 A.D.2d 620, 538 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reno-v-mitts-merrill-inc-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack