Richards v. Pathmark Food Store

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Richards v. Pathmark Food Store

112 A.D.2d 360, 491 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56493

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

DecidedJuly 22, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 112 A.D.2d 360 (Richards v. Pathmark Food Store) 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

Richards v. Pathmark Food Store, 112 A.D.2d 360, 491 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56493 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff as a result of an assault and battery, false arrest and negligence, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lawrence, J.), dated September 15, 1983, which (1) denied their motion to compel plaintiff to answer their first set of interrogatories and comply with their various demands and notices of discovery and (2) [361]*361made a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 limiting the use of said disclosure devices.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Special Term did not abuse its discretion in limiting the use of disclosure devices pursuant to CPLR 3103 where it appeared, as the court noted, that "the disclosure devices being employed by defendants herein may be an unreasonable annoyance, intended to harass and overburden plaintiff and his counsel” (see, Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v Marbach, 66 AD2d 335). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff as a result of an assault and battery, false arrest and negligence, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lawrence, J.), dated September 15, 1983, which (1) denied their motion to compel plaintiff to answer their first set of interrogatories and comply with their various demands and notices of discovery and (2) [361]*361made a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 limiting the use of said disclosure devices.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Special Term did not abuse its discretion in limiting the use of disclosure devices pursuant to CPLR 3103 where it appeared, as the court noted, that "the disclosure devices being employed by defendants herein may be an unreasonable annoyance, intended to harass and overburden plaintiff and his counsel” (see, Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v Marbach, 66 AD2d 335). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 360, 491 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-pathmark-food-store-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack