Rodriguez v. Honda Motor Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Honda Motor Co.

141 A.D.2d 625, 529 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6532

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

DecidedJune 13, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 141 A.D.2d 625 (Rodriguez v. Honda Motor Co.) 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

Rodriguez v. Honda Motor Co., 141 A.D.2d 625, 529 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6532 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injury, the defendant Honda Motor Company (hereinafter Honda) appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Morton, J.), dated July 27, 1987, which denied its motion to compel discovery against the plaintiffs.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find no basis for granting Honda’s motion. The discovery sought is of matter prepared for litigation which is not discoverable except under circumstances where such discovery is needed to allow an adverse party to determine if or how the subject was altered (Perfido v Messina, 125 AD2d 654). Here, although Honda was provided with photographs of the motorcycle showing the areas tested by the plaintiffs’ expert, it has failed to explain what portions of the motorcycle were altered or why the investigation sought is necessary. Thus, its application for disclosure is without merit (see, Perfido v Messina, supra). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injury, the defendant Honda Motor Company (hereinafter Honda) appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Morton, J.), dated July 27, 1987, which denied its motion to compel discovery against the plaintiffs.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find no basis for granting Honda’s motion. The discovery sought is of matter prepared for litigation which is not discoverable except under circumstances where such discovery is needed to allow an adverse party to determine if or how the subject was altered (Perfido v Messina, 125 AD2d 654). Here, although Honda was provided with photographs of the motorcycle showing the areas tested by the plaintiffs’ expert, it has failed to explain what portions of the motorcycle were altered or why the investigation sought is necessary. Thus, its application for disclosure is without merit (see, Perfido v Messina, supra). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.D.2d 625, 529 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-honda-motor-co-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack