Ruiz v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruiz v. City of New York

125 A.D.2d 661, 510 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62939

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 125 A.D.2d 661 (Ruiz v. City of New York) 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

Ruiz v. City of New York, 125 A.D.2d 661, 510 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62939 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence, false arrest and malicious prosecution, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated February 19, 1986, which denied their motion to compel the District Attorney of Queens County, a nonparty, to produce a copy of an official case file in the underlying criminal action brought against the plaintiff Julio Ruiz.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiffs sought to inspect the case file maintained by the Queens County District Attorney in a criminal action brought against the plaintiff Julio Ruiz. The instant civil proceeding seeks to recover damages for alleged physical injuries suffered by Julio Ruiz at the hands of the police as he was being arrested for the crimes charged in the criminal action. The Supreme Court denied the motion on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to specify with sufficient particularity the items sought to be discovered. We affirm, although for different reasons.

There is no proof in the record that the District Attorney of Queens County was properly served with the notice of motion "in the same manner as a summons” (CPLR 3120 [b]). Thus, the plaintiffs have failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements of CPLR 3120 for seeking discovery and inspection against a nonparty.

We note that the District Attorney has made the file sought by the plaintiffs available to their adversary in the instant matter. Accordingly, the plaintiffs if they be so advised should proceed against the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York for the production of the District Attorney’s file. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Kunzeman, 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 negligence, false arrest and malicious prosecution, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated February 19, 1986, which denied their motion to compel the District Attorney of Queens County, a nonparty, to produce a copy of an official case file in the underlying criminal action brought against the plaintiff Julio Ruiz.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiffs sought to inspect the case file maintained by the Queens County District Attorney in a criminal action brought against the plaintiff Julio Ruiz. The instant civil proceeding seeks to recover damages for alleged physical injuries suffered by Julio Ruiz at the hands of the police as he was being arrested for the crimes charged in the criminal action. The Supreme Court denied the motion on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to specify with sufficient particularity the items sought to be discovered. We affirm, although for different reasons.

There is no proof in the record that the District Attorney of Queens County was properly served with the notice of motion "in the same manner as a summons” (CPLR 3120 [b]). Thus, the plaintiffs have failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements of CPLR 3120 for seeking discovery and inspection against a nonparty.

We note that the District Attorney has made the file sought by the plaintiffs available to their adversary in the instant matter. Accordingly, the plaintiffs if they be so advised should proceed against the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York for the production of the District Attorney’s file. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.2d 661, 510 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruiz-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack