Silberberg v. Hotpoint Division of General Electric Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silberberg v. Hotpoint Division of General Electric Co.

23 A.D.2d 754, 259 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4360

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

DecidedApril 29, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 754 (Silberberg v. Hotpoint Division of General Electric 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

Silberberg v. Hotpoint Division of General Electric Co., 23 A.D.2d 754, 259 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4360 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, entered on July 22, 1964 denying defendant’s motion for a protective order and entered on July 23, 1964 granting plaintiff’s cross motion for disclosure of an inspection report, unanimously reversed on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, and defendant’s motion for a protective order granted, and plaintiffs’ cross motion denied. The action seeks recovery for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff while using a washing machine. Defendant obtained an order for inspection of the machine. Pursuant to that order defendant had the machine inspected by an engineer who made certain tests on it. Plaintiff demanded a copy of the engineer’s report and defendant sought a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103. That this report was prepared for litigation is too clear for discussion. So likewise is it clear that it is excepted from disclosure (CPLR 3101, subd. [d]). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Orders, entered on July 22, 1964 denying defendant’s motion for a protective order and entered on July 23, 1964 granting plaintiff’s cross motion for disclosure of an inspection report, unanimously reversed on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, and defendant’s motion for a protective order granted, and plaintiffs’ cross motion denied. The action seeks recovery for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff while using a washing machine. Defendant obtained an order for inspection of the machine. Pursuant to that order defendant had the machine inspected by an engineer who made certain tests on it. Plaintiff demanded a copy of the engineer’s report and defendant sought a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103. That this report was prepared for litigation is too clear for discussion. So likewise is it clear that it is excepted from disclosure (CPLR 3101, subd. [d]). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 754, 259 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silberberg-v-hotpoint-division-of-general-electric-co-nyappdiv-1965.