Rinaldo v. Syracuse University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rinaldo v. Syracuse University

51 A.D.2d 675, 378 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11036

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 675 (Rinaldo v. Syracuse University) 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

Rinaldo v. Syracuse University, 51 A.D.2d 675, 378 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11036 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We agree with Special Term that third-party plaintiffs responses to interrogatories served upon it by third-party defendants were not unresponsive nor may they be construed to be a willful failure to disclose information sufficient to impose the drastic remedy of preclusion (CPLR 3126; see Livingston v Mayes, 23 AD2d 814; Practice Commentary, Siegel, McKinney’s Cons. Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3126, p 646-650). Although CPLR 3133 (subd [a]) requires that objections to interrogatories be made within 10 days after service of the interrogatories, where the objection to an interrogatory involves a CPLR 3101 immunity, the 10-day time limitation is inapplicable (Practice Commentary, Siegel, McKinney’s Cons. Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3133, p 682; see Coffey v Orbachs, Inc., 22 AD2d 317, 320). Interrogatories Nos. 13 and 14 clearly deal with privileged matter (CPLR 3101, subd [b]). While it might have been better practice for the third-party plaintiff to have moved within the 10-day time period in CPLR 3133 (subd [a]) such time limitation does not override the more important considerations underlying the immunity provisions of CPLR 3101. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court in action to recover broker’s commissions.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Mahoney, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We agree with Special Term that third-party plaintiffs responses to interrogatories served upon it by third-party defendants were not unresponsive nor may they be construed to be a willful failure to disclose information sufficient to impose the drastic remedy of preclusion (CPLR 3126; see Livingston v Mayes, 23 AD2d 814; Practice Commentary, Siegel, McKinney’s Cons. Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3126, p 646-650). Although CPLR 3133 (subd [a]) requires that objections to interrogatories be made within 10 days after service of the interrogatories, where the objection to an interrogatory involves a CPLR 3101 immunity, the 10-day time limitation is inapplicable (Practice Commentary, Siegel, McKinney’s Cons. Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3133, p 682; see Coffey v Orbachs, Inc., 22 AD2d 317, 320). Interrogatories Nos. 13 and 14 clearly deal with privileged matter (CPLR 3101, subd [b]). While it might have been better practice for the third-party plaintiff to have moved within the 10-day time period in CPLR 3133 (subd [a]) such time limitation does not override the more important considerations underlying the immunity provisions of CPLR 3101. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court in action to recover broker’s commissions.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Mahoney, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 675, 378 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rinaldo-v-syracuse-university-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack