From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cornell Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Mushlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 7, 1981
85 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Opinion

December 7, 1981


In an action to recover damages from former employees for self-dealing and wasting corporate assets, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered March 6, 1981, as granted a motion by defendants Mushlin to compel plaintiff to produce certain documents. Order modified by adding thereto a provision denying the motion with respect to all statements acquired by plaintiff's attorney from plaintiff's employees. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff's time to produce the remaining documents is extended until 20 days after service upon it of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. The statements taken by plaintiff's attorney from plaintiff's employees are privileged under CPLR 3101 (subd [c]) and are protected from disclosure (see Pataki v Kiseda, 80 A.D.2d 100; Upjohn Co. v United States, 449 U.S. 383). We have considered plaintiff's other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J.P., Rabin, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cornell Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Mushlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 7, 1981
85 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
Case details for

Cornell Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Mushlin

Case Details

Full title:CORNELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. SIDNEY B. MUSHLIN et…

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

Date published: Dec 7, 1981

Citations

85 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
444 N.Y.S.2d 709

Citing Cases

Stein v. Trump Vil. No. 4

The appellate court finds no anomaly with its Pataki decision, stating in Vernet ( supra, p 847) that…

Niesig v. Team I

The court stated that the "narrow 'control group test' sanctioned by the Court of Appeals in this case…