Warren v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Warren v. City of New York

71 A.D.2d 573, 418 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12767

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

DecidedJuly 10, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 71 A.D.2d 573 (Warren v. City of New York) 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

Warren v. City of New York, 71 A.D.2d 573, 418 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinions

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 21, 1978, denying plaintiffs’ motion for discovery and inspection of certain documents contained in the records of the Department of Social Services of the City of New York, affirmed, without costs and disbursements. Appellants have not argued that the Trial Justice abused his discretion in withholding portions of the file, which portions appear to refer to informants. Absent any cogent reason for disturbing Special Term’s discretionary determination, its decision should not be disturbed. We conclude, therefore, that Special Term by its ruling balanced the need for disclosure and did not abuse its discretion. Concur—Birns, J. P., Silverman and Ross, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 21, 1978, denying plaintiffs’ motion for discovery and inspection of certain documents contained in the records of the Department of Social Services of the City of New York, affirmed, without costs and disbursements. Appellants have not argued that the Trial Justice abused his discretion in withholding portions of the file, which portions appear to refer to informants. Absent any cogent reason for disturbing Special Term’s discretionary determination, its decision should not be disturbed. We conclude, therefore, that Special Term by its ruling balanced the need for disclosure and did not abuse its discretion. Concur—Birns, J. P., Silverman and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.2d 573, 418 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack