Wolken v. E. W. Howell Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wolken v. E. W. Howell Co.

41 A.D.2d 545, 339 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5345

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 41 A.D.2d 545 (Wolken v. E. W. Howell Co.) 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

Wolken v. E. W. Howell Co., 41 A.D.2d 545, 339 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5345 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the'Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 14, 1972, as, on reargument, (1) adhered to the original decision denying plaintiff’s prior motion for a protective' order vacating a notice of discovery and inspection by the third-party defendant, (2) directed all the parties to exchange the names and addresses of all witnesses and (3) directed plaintiff to produce for inspection and copying by the third-party defendant of any and all photographs taken at the scene of the accident on the date of the occurrence. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. Disclosure of the names and addresses of eyewitnesses tó the accident, learned by plaintiff in a postaeeident investigation, should, be made to the third-party defendant, as an exception to the general rule of nonavailability of work product to an adversary (see Zelbman v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 40 A D 2d 248). Photographs'taken of the scene of the • accident on behalf of plaintiff are material prepared for litigation. Such material can "no longer be duplicated because ■ r ; change in conditions; and withholding it will result in injustice or undue hardship ni, therefore, it is subject to disclosure (CPLR 3101, subd. [d]; Saccente v. Toierhi, 35 A D 2d 692). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Grulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ,, concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the'Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 14, 1972, as, on reargument, (1) adhered to the original decision denying plaintiff’s prior motion for a protective' order vacating a notice of discovery and inspection by the third-party defendant, (2) directed all the parties to exchange the names and addresses of all witnesses and (3) directed plaintiff to produce for inspection and copying by the third-party defendant of any and all photographs taken at the scene of the accident on the date of the occurrence. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. Disclosure of the names and addresses of eyewitnesses tó the accident, learned by plaintiff in a postaeeident investigation, should, be made to the third-party defendant, as an exception to the general rule of nonavailability of work product to an adversary (see Zelbman v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 40 A D 2d 248). Photographs'taken of the scene of the • accident on behalf of plaintiff are material prepared for litigation. Such material can "no longer be duplicated because ■ r ; change in conditions; and withholding it will result in injustice or undue hardship ni, therefore, it is subject to disclosure (CPLR 3101, subd. [d]; Saccente v. Toierhi, 35 A D 2d 692). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Grulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ,, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 545, 339 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolken-v-e-w-howell-co-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack