White Plains Urban Renewal Agency v. Einhorn
This text of 38 A.D.2d 979 (White Plains Urban Renewal Agency v. Einhorn) 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.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
38 A.D.2d 979, 331 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-plains-urban-renewal-agency-v-einhorn-nyappdiv-1972.