Sheremeta v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sheremeta v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

269 A.D.2d 796, 703 N.Y.S.2d 425, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1687

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 796 (Sheremeta v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance) 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

Sheremeta v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance, 269 A.D.2d 796, 703 N.Y.S.2d 425, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order (cf., Oppenheimer v Shubitowski, 92 AD2d 1021). The fact that defendant conducted an examination under oath and required the production of documents during its investigation of plaintiffs’ insurance claim prior to the commencement of this action does not preclude defendant from seeking production of the same documents and an examination before trial of plaintiffs pursuant to CPLR article 31 (see, Marcus & Sons v Federal Ins. Co., 24 AD2d 922; Waugh v Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co., 52 Misc 2d 141; see also, Sentry Ins. v Shivers, 164 FRD 255). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cosgrove, J. — Discovery.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order (cf., Oppenheimer v Shubitowski, 92 AD2d 1021). The fact that defendant conducted an examination under oath and required the production of documents during its investigation of plaintiffs’ insurance claim prior to the commencement of this action does not preclude defendant from seeking production of the same documents and an examination before trial of plaintiffs pursuant to CPLR article 31 (see, Marcus & Sons v Federal Ins. Co., 24 AD2d 922; Waugh v Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co., 52 Misc 2d 141; see also, Sentry Ins. v Shivers, 164 FRD 255). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cosgrove, J. — Discovery.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 796, 703 N.Y.S.2d 425, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheremeta-v-new-york-central-mutual-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack