From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cushing v. Seemann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 25, 1997
238 A.D.2d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

April 25, 1997

Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: In this action for personal injury and wrongful death arising out of an automobile accident, defendants appeal from an order insofar as it denied defendants' motion to compel disclosure of documents containing or reflecting communications between plaintiffs' attorneys and plaintiffs' treating psychiatrist and expert witness, Dr. Miller. After reviewing those documents in camera, we conclude that Supreme Court properly determined that they are immune from disclosure as the "work product of an attorney" (CPLR 3101 [c]). Moreover, the documents are "protect[ed] against disclosure" as materials prepared for litigation insofar as they contain or reflect the "mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation" (CPLR 3101 [d] [2]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Contiguglia, J. — Disclosure.)


Summaries of

Cushing v. Seemann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 25, 1997
238 A.D.2d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Cushing v. Seemann

Case Details

Full title:SUSAN E. CUSHING, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of…

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

Date published: Apr 25, 1997

Citations

238 A.D.2d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
661 N.Y.S.2d 561

Citing Cases

Holmes v. Weissman

We disagree. Defendant used the report only for cross-examination. The court erred, however, in directing…