Stanco v. Steinberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stanco v. Steinberg

254 A.D.2d 363, 678 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10737

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

DecidedOctober 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 363 (Stanco v. Steinberg) 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

Stanco v. Steinberg, 254 A.D.2d 363, 678 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3102 (c) to preserve testimony, the appeal is from an order of Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated August 22, 1995, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There shall be “full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” (CPLR 3101 [a]; see, Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank, 78 NY2d 371, 376) and the court has wide discretion in determining what is material and necessary (see, Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406). Pre-action disclosure is available by court order for the purpose of aiding in the bringing of an action and to preserve information (see, CPLR 3102 [c]). Here, where Richard Stanco, now deceased, was in extremis at the time of the commencement of the instant proceeding to preserve his testimony, there was an adequate demonstration of the need to preserve his testimony.

This Court, however, does not pass on the admissibility of the videotaped deposition. That issue is left to the trial court to decide. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3102 (c) to preserve testimony, the appeal is from an order of Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), dated August 22, 1995, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There shall be “full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” (CPLR 3101 [a]; see, Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank, 78 NY2d 371, 376) and the court has wide discretion in determining what is material and necessary (see, Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406). Pre-action disclosure is available by court order for the purpose of aiding in the bringing of an action and to preserve information (see, CPLR 3102 [c]). Here, where Richard Stanco, now deceased, was in extremis at the time of the commencement of the instant proceeding to preserve his testimony, there was an adequate demonstration of the need to preserve his testimony.

This Court, however, does not pass on the admissibility of the videotaped deposition. That issue is left to the trial court to decide. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 363, 678 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanco-v-steinberg-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack