From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Rosenberg v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 2, 1981
80 A.D.2d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Opinion

March 2, 1981


The appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered October 15, 1980, which denied petitioners' motion for discovery and inspection of certain reports and records of the respondent the Brooklyn Union Gas Company. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and petitioners' motion for discovery and inspection is granted, but limited to a one-square block area from petitioners' residence and to a time period of one year preceding the accident. Since petitioners have demonstrated that a cause of action exists, CPLR 3102 (subd [c]) would authorize preaction discovery to allow them to frame their complaint and obtain the identity of prospective defendants (Matter of Urban v. Hooker Chems. Plastics Corp., 75 A.D.2d 720; Matter of Houlihan-Parnes Realtors [Cantor Fitzgerald Co.], 58 A.D.2d 629). However, to the extent that the petitioners' motion for discovery and inspection sought respondent's records covering a five-block area for a period of three years, it was overly broad (cf. Yannick v. Tube City Iron Metal Co., 77 A.D.2d 623). Titone, J.P., Mangano, Cohalan and O'Connor, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Rosenberg v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 2, 1981
80 A.D.2d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
Case details for

Matter of Rosenberg v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SCOTT R. ROSENBERG, an Infant, by His Father and Natural…

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

Date published: Mar 2, 1981

Citations

80 A.D.2d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Citing Cases

Larkin v. Commercial Paint, Inc.

The information sought in Item No. 6 is found in Item Nos. 3, 4, and 5. Item No. 1, which sought highway…

Daniels v. Fairfield Presidential

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendants' motion…