Young v. Tierney

271 A.D.2d 603, 706 N.Y.S.2d 170, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4289
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 17, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 603 (Young v. Tierney) 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
Young v. Tierney, 271 A.D.2d 603, 706 N.Y.S.2d 170, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4289 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death and personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), entered March 23, 1999, as denied that branch of their motion which was to compel discovery and inspection of certain documents relating to vehicles manufactured by the defendant Navistar International Transportation Corporation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The disclosure available pursuant to CPLR 3101 generally is left to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Silcox v City of New York, 233 AD2d 494). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ request for information concerning Navistar International Transportation Corporation’s design and use of bumper plates and smooth flanges on certain vehicle models. The plaintiffs failed to make a threshold showing of relevance between the vehicle models for which discovery was sought and the vehicle identified as having been involved in the accident (see, Cirineo v Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., 260 AD2d 341). The record contains insufficient proof that the vehicle models for which disclosure was sought are sufficiently similar in design to the vehicle claimed to be [604]*604defective so as to sustain the disclosure sought by the plaintiffs (see, Cirineo v Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., supra; Breslauer v Dan, 150 AD2d 324). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Peculic v. Sawicki
129 A.D.3d 930 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Lexington Acupuncture, P.C. v. General Assurance Co.
35 Misc. 3d 42 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Kooper v. Kooper
74 A.D.3d 6 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Tower Insurance v. Murello
68 A.D.3d 977 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Wander v. St. John's University
67 A.D.3d 904 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Velez v. South Nine Realty Corp.
32 A.D.3d 1017 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
271 A.D.2d 603, 706 N.Y.S.2d 170, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-tierney-nyappdiv-2000.