Tiller v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tiller v. County of Nassau

86 A.D.2d 868, 447 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15501

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A.D.2d 868 (Tiller v. County of Nassau) 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

Tiller v. County of Nassau, 86 A.D.2d 868, 447 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Young, J.), dated March 4, 1981, which denied his motion to strike certain interrogatories. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiff’s time to answer is extended until 20 days after service upon him of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. Plaintiff has failed to show that any privileged information has been requested, or that there is any other legitimate basis on which to object to the interrogatories. The court notes, nevertheless, that defendant’s interrogatories are in a form that includes multiple requests for the same information and requests for information inapplicable to the instant case. We look with disfavor upon such papers that are prepared from general forms and are not tailored to the specific litigation at bar. They can create an unnecessary nuisance to an adversary, and, when reviewed by a court, an annoying waste of time. Such practice should be avoided. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Young, J.), dated March 4, 1981, which denied his motion to strike certain interrogatories. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiff’s time to answer is extended until 20 days after service upon him of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. Plaintiff has failed to show that any privileged information has been requested, or that there is any other legitimate basis on which to object to the interrogatories. The court notes, nevertheless, that defendant’s interrogatories are in a form that includes multiple requests for the same information and requests for information inapplicable to the instant case. We look with disfavor upon such papers that are prepared from general forms and are not tailored to the specific litigation at bar. They can create an unnecessary nuisance to an adversary, and, when reviewed by a court, an annoying waste of time. Such practice should be avoided. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 868, 447 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tiller-v-county-of-nassau-nyappdiv-1982.