Weiser v. Krakowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weiser v. Krakowski

90 A.D.2d 847, 456 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19112

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 90 A.D.2d 847 (Weiser v. Krakowski) 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

Weiser v. Krakowski, 90 A.D.2d 847, 456 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19112 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated wrongful death actions arising out of an automobile accident, defen[848]*848dants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aronin, J.), dated October 15, 1981, as granted that part of plaintiff’s motion which sought discovery and inspection of written statements of the defendants. Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements, and that part of plaintiff’s motion which sought discovery and inspection of defendants’ written statements denied. The enactment of CPLR 3101 (subd [g]), was not intended to subject to discovery the report of an accident given by a party to his liability insurer or his attorney. Such written reports and/or statements retain the privilege accorded by prior decisional law (see Vernet v Gilbert, 90 AD2d 846). Titone, J. P., Weinstein, Gulotta and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated wrongful death actions arising out of an automobile accident, defen[848]*848dants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aronin, J.), dated October 15, 1981, as granted that part of plaintiff’s motion which sought discovery and inspection of written statements of the defendants. Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements, and that part of plaintiff’s motion which sought discovery and inspection of defendants’ written statements denied. The enactment of CPLR 3101 (subd [g]), was not intended to subject to discovery the report of an accident given by a party to his liability insurer or his attorney. Such written reports and/or statements retain the privilege accorded by prior decisional law (see Vernet v Gilbert, 90 AD2d 846). Titone, J. P., Weinstein, Gulotta and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.2d 847, 456 N.Y.S.2d 94, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weiser-v-krakowski-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack