Stern v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stern v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

159 A.D.2d 1013, 552 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3338

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 159 A.D.2d 1013 (Stern v. Aetna Casualty & Surety 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

Stern v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 159 A.D.2d 1013, 552 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3338 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiff, in accordance with the following memorandum: Supreme Court erred in limiting discovery and inspection of defendant’s files to only those documents predating the commencement of this action. The record of the examination before trial discloses that Aetna’s representative reviewed the entire file prior to testifying at his deposition. "We think it a sound rule that writings used prior to testifying for the [1014]*1014purpose of refreshing the memory of a witness be made available to the adversary whether at the trial * * * or at pretrial examination” (Doxtator v Swarthout, 38 AD2d 782). Where, as here, a witness testifying at a pretrial examination uses some writing to refresh his recollection and bases his deposition testimony on that writing, any claim that the writing is privileged as having been prepared for litigation has been waived (Rouse v County of Greene, 115 AD2d 162; Merrill Lynch Realty Commercial Servs. v Rudin Mgt. Co., 94 AD2d 617; Doxtator v Swarthout, supra). (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J. — discovery.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiff, in accordance with the following memorandum: Supreme Court erred in limiting discovery and inspection of defendant’s files to only those documents predating the commencement of this action. The record of the examination before trial discloses that Aetna’s representative reviewed the entire file prior to testifying at his deposition. "We think it a sound rule that writings used prior to testifying for the [1014]*1014purpose of refreshing the memory of a witness be made available to the adversary whether at the trial * * * or at pretrial examination” (Doxtator v Swarthout, 38 AD2d 782). Where, as here, a witness testifying at a pretrial examination uses some writing to refresh his recollection and bases his deposition testimony on that writing, any claim that the writing is privileged as having been prepared for litigation has been waived (Rouse v County of Greene, 115 AD2d 162; Merrill Lynch Realty Commercial Servs. v Rudin Mgt. Co., 94 AD2d 617; Doxtator v Swarthout, supra). (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Curran, J. — discovery.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 1013, 552 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stern-v-aetna-casualty-surety-co-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack