White Plains Coat & Apron Co. v. Lehmann

87 A.D.2d 629, 448 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15948
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 22, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 87 A.D.2d 629 (White Plains Coat & Apron Co. v. Lehmann) 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
White Plains Coat & Apron Co. v. Lehmann, 87 A.D.2d 629, 448 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15948 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

In a contract action [630]*630to recover for lost profits, the third-party defendant fourth-party plaintiff appeals from an order, of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J. ), dated June 17, 1981, which granted the plaintiff fourth-party defendant’s motion for a protective order with respect to the production of certain documents for deposition upon oral examination. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Appellant sought by notice to take deposition upon oral examination of plaintiff’s president, to compel production of “plaintiff’s books of account (including without limitation its general ledgers), financial statements, profit and loss statements, and federal and state tax returns for the entire period with respect to which damages measured by lost profits are claimed herein; and * * * [a]ll route cards, ledger cards, invoices, bills, statements, receipts, documents or business records of any kind and description relating to the linen supply services rendered by plaintiff to defendant K. M. Lehmann d/b/a Maxi’s Restaurant, including without limitation all records relating to merchandise ordered by plaintiff especially for Maxi’s Restaurant.” The notice was overly burdensome in that it “seeks an improper wholesale fishing expedition” of plaintiff’s financial affairs and business records. (Butler v District Council 37, Amer. Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, 72 AD2d 720.) The array of documents sought exceeds the requirements for a pretrial examination and the bounds intended by CPLR 3111. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to a protective order without prejudice to the service of a proper disclosure demand, should appellant be so advised. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

Related

STATE EX REL. STATE FARM MUT. v. Bedell
719 S.E.2d 722 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2011)
State ex rel. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Bedell
719 S.E.2d 722 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2011)
Hertz Corp. v. Avis, Inc.
106 A.D.2d 246 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Barnes v. Barnes
96 A.D.2d 894 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Kahn v. Rodman
91 A.D.2d 910 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 A.D.2d 629, 448 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-plains-coat-apron-co-v-lehmann-nyappdiv-1982.