White Plains Urban Renewal Agency v. Einhorn

38 A.D.2d 979, 331 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5088
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 27, 1972·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In a condemnation proceeding, the property owners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 7, 1971, which granted petitioner’s motion for a protective order vacating the owners’ notice for a pretrial examination of petitioner. Order affirmed, without costs. The case of City of Binghamton v. Arlington Hotel (30 A D 2d 585 [Third Dept.]), relied upon by appellants, is inapplicable, for the rule in the Third Department (22 NYCRR 839.3) differs in language and scope from the rule in this Department (22 NYCRR 678.1). In affirming the order herein we are merely holding that the appraisals in question are not subject to pretrial disclosure. We reach no other question. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Shapiro, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

White Plains Urban Renewal Agency v. Einhorn, 38 A.D.2d 979, 331 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5088 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

38 A.D.2d 979 (White Plains Urban Renewal Agency v. Einhorn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

First National City Bank v. State
72 A.D.2d 762 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
In re the Town of Oyster Bay
54 A.D.2d 762 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Newburgh Urban Renewal Agency v. Saffioti
50 A.D.2d 803 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)