Sarna v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sarna v. City of New York

143 A.D.2d 409, 534 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9201

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

DecidedSeptember 19, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 143 A.D.2d 409 (Sarna 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

Sarna v. City of New York, 143 A.D.2d 409, 534 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant the City of New York appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rader, J.), dated November 25, 1986, as granted the plaintiffs motion to strike the appellant’s answer for failure to respond to the plaintiffs notice of discovery and inspection to the extent that it ordered the appellant to index notices of claim by location.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the plaintiff’s motion is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to determine the extent, if any, to which the document demands made in the plaintiffs notice of discovery and inspection were palpably improper (see, Cohen v City of New York, 143 AD2d 388 [decided herewith]). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant the City of New York appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rader, J.), dated November 25, 1986, as granted the plaintiffs motion to strike the appellant’s answer for failure to respond to the plaintiffs notice of discovery and inspection to the extent that it ordered the appellant to index notices of claim by location.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the plaintiff’s motion is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to determine the extent, if any, to which the document demands made in the plaintiffs notice of discovery and inspection were palpably improper (see, Cohen v City of New York, 143 AD2d 388 [decided herewith]). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A.D.2d 409, 534 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarna-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack