Valot v. Forest Hills Country Club Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Valot v. Forest Hills Country Club Corp.

290 A.D.2d 438, 736 N.Y.S.2d 606, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 243

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 290 A.D.2d 438 (Valot v. Forest Hills Country Club Corp.) 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

Valot v. Forest Hills Country Club Corp., 290 A.D.2d 438, 736 N.Y.S.2d 606, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 243 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated April 27, 2001, as denied that branch of their motion which was to compel the defendants to provide certain discovery.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to compel the defendants to provide certain discovery is granted.

The plaintiffs properly demonstrated that the discovery items they requested were material and necessary to the prosecution of the action (see, Liverano v Devinsky, 278 AD2d 386; Radon Constr. Corp. v Alcon Constr. Corp., 277 AD2d 368). The Supreme Court therefore erred in denying that branch of their motion which was to compel the defendants to provide the discovery. Smith, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Adams and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated April 27, 2001, as denied that branch of their motion which was to compel the defendants to provide certain discovery.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to compel the defendants to provide certain discovery is granted.

The plaintiffs properly demonstrated that the discovery items they requested were material and necessary to the prosecution of the action (see, Liverano v Devinsky, 278 AD2d 386; Radon Constr. Corp. v Alcon Constr. Corp., 277 AD2d 368). The Supreme Court therefore erred in denying that branch of their motion which was to compel the defendants to provide the discovery. Smith, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Adams and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 438, 736 N.Y.S.2d 606, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valot-v-forest-hills-country-club-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack