From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baratta v. Pallotta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 27, 1981
81 A.D.2d 1040 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Opinion

May 27, 1981

Appeal from the Onondaga Supreme Court.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Doerr, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied without prejudice to renew within 20 days from the date of service of the order herein. Memorandum: Third-party defendant's motion for a protective order denying discovery of the results of certain tests was improperly granted (CPLR 3103). A party opposing discovery bears the burden of proving that the material sought was prepared for litigation and, therefore, was immune from disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101 (subd [d]) (Koump v Smith, 25 N.Y.2d 287, 294; Mobil Oil Corp. v State of New York, 52 A.D.2d 1033). The attorney's conclusory allegations were insufficient to meet this burden (Hunt v Joseph, 67 A.D.2d 697).


Summaries of

Baratta v. Pallotta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 27, 1981
81 A.D.2d 1040 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
Case details for

Baratta v. Pallotta

Case Details

Full title:ROSE BARATTA, Plaintiff, v. JOHN PALLOTTA, Doing Business as SOLVAY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: May 27, 1981

Citations

81 A.D.2d 1040 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Citing Cases

PCB Piezotronics, Inc. v. Change

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants' motion for a protective order. Defendants failed to…

Lane Bryant, Inc. v. Cohen

Inasmuch as policy strongly favors full disclosure, the burden is on the party asserting protection to…