Rockefeller Group, Inc. v. Edwards & Hjorth

158 A.D.2d 306, 551 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1065

This text of 158 A.D.2d 306 (Rockefeller Group, Inc. v. Edwards & Hjorth) 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
Rockefeller Group, Inc. v. Edwards & Hjorth, 158 A.D.2d 306, 551 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1065 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Since the question of ownership of the documents in their currently existing state remains to be established at trial, discovery should be limited to evidence that bears on the [307]*307question of ownership. Plaintiff has failed to show a sufficient connection between review of the plans themselves (items 1 and 2 of the notice) and the issue of ownership. To permit discovery of these items would prematurely provide plaintiff with a large measure of the relief it ultimately seeks. Concur —Kupferman, J. P., Milonas, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
158 A.D.2d 306, 551 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rockefeller-group-inc-v-edwards-hjorth-nyappdiv-1990.