From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perez v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 6, 2000
271 A.D.2d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

April 6, 2000.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about December 16, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied in part plaintiffs' motion to compel disclosure and granted in part defendants' cross-motion for a protective order, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to direct that defendants disclose items 1, 2 (limited to the day of the occurrence), 9 and 11 in the Notice for Discovery and Inspection dated June 17, 1999, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Kevin J. Brennan, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Ellen B. Fishman, for defendants-respondents.

ROSENBERGER, J.P., WILLIAMS, TOM, RUBIN, BUCKLEY, JJ.


In this action to recover for injuries allegedly sustained by the infant plaintiff in a classroom accident, we find that items 1, 2 (limited to the day of the occurrence), 9 and 11 are relevant to the issues in this action. As to the remaining items requested, the IAS court properly granted a protective order, notwithstanding the untimeliness of defendants' cross motion, since the disclosure sought was either overly broad or unnecessary and therefore "palpably improper" (see, Matter of Williamson, 261 A.D.2d 147; Hualde v. Otis El. Co., 235 A.D.2d 269; Haller v. N. Riverside Partners, 189 A.D.2d 615). We note that some of the information requested in items 6, 10 and 13 may be elicited in depositions, which have yet to take place, after which plaintiffs may formulate more specific documentary requests (see,Barber v. Ford Motor Co., 250 A.D.2d 552; Haller v. N. Riverside Partners, supra, 189 A.D.2d at 616). Item 15, requesting the school records of another child was properly stricken since it lacks specificity and plaintiffs have not demonstrated a need for the records (see, Culbert v. City of New York, 254 A.D.2d 385, 388). The notice to inspect the school premises was properly stricken since such inspection is not necessary to the resolution of issues in the case and information as to classroom space per student may be obtained through items 1 and 2 of plaintiff's discovery notice.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Perez v. Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 6, 2000
271 A.D.2d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Perez v. Board of Education

Case Details

Full title:IWELDA PEREZ, ETC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE BOARD OF…

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

Date published: Apr 6, 2000

Citations

271 A.D.2d 251 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
706 N.Y.S.2d 43

Citing Cases

Walt Disney Co. v. Peerenboom

FerraraBros. Bldg. Materials Corp. v FMC Const., LLC, 138 AD3d 685, 685 (1st Dept. 2016); see Perez v Bd. of…

Siler v. Ennis Francis Houses Mgmt.

Such demands are palpably improper, as they are so overly broad and seek irrelevant and immaterial…