Roof v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

67 A.D.2d 849, 413 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10565
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 6, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 67 A.D.2d 849 (Roof v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey) 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
Roof v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 67 A.D.2d 849, 413 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10565 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered January 26, 1977, granting defendants’ motion for a protective order striking the notice of discovery and inspection is unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, and without prejudice to a motion to depose a more knowledgeable employee or to service of a more precise notice of discovery and inspection. In this action to recover damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering arising from an accident which occurred when plaintiff’s intestate was struck by one of defendants’ trains on the tracks of one of defendants’ stations in Jersey City, New Jersey, plaintiff sought discovery and inspection. Plaintiff’s motion called for all maps, plans, blueprints, surveys, photographs or other documents depicting the construction format, layout, diagrams, etc., for such items as tracks, stairs, platforms and lighting fixtures. The court at Special Term, in striking this overbroad demand, encompassing as it does the entire railroad station, opined that the pending examination of the motorman, along with the previous examination of the train conductor, should be sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that the depositions were not informative inasmuch as he sought specific information pertaining to grade, contour, description, distances and other physical characteristics of the tracks and tunnel approaching the station. Although we agree that the facts plaintiff seeks to discover are germane to the action, the striking of his notice was proper due to its "blunderbuss” effect. (See City of New York v Friedberg & Assoc., 62 AD2d 407). Rios v Donovan (21 AD2d 409, 413) held that documents be identified with reasonable particularity in the notice. Proper procedure requires that a party first ascertain by means of an examination or otherwise whether there are relevant documents, then service of a notice to discover specifically identified documents follows. After deposing a knowledgeable employee of defendant’s technical or engineering staff, plaintiff will then be able to serve the requisite notice for discovery and inspection of documents identified with the appropriate specificity. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Evans, Sandler, Lane and Markewich, JJ.

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

Related

Craig v. New York Telephone Co.
123 A.D.2d 580 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Conway v. Bayley Seton Hospital
104 A.D.2d 1018 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Torpey v. Alpine Brook Triangle Corp.
84 A.D.2d 739 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 A.D.2d 849, 413 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roof-v-port-authority-of-new-york-new-jersey-nyappdiv-1979.