From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Engel v. Hagedorn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 19, 1991
170 A.D.2d 301 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 19, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Herbert Shapiro, J.).


A review of the interrogatories and the notice of discovery, in light of plaintiff's extensive and lengthy amended complaint, reveals that the IAS court did not abuse its discretion in restricting the scope of discovery. (See, Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406.) Each discovery demand, as modified by the IAS court, relates to specific facts and damages raised by plaintiff. While some of the discovery seeks "all documents", these requests are limited to specific subjects and are thus not overly broad. (See, Scheinfeld v Burlant, 98 A.D.2d 603.)

Finally, while defendants served a notice of deposition before they served the interrogatories, under the circumstances, they are not required to take the deposition before the interrogatories are answered. (Bassett v Bando Sangsa Co., 94 A.D.2d 358, appeal dismissed 60 N.Y.2d 962.)

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kassal and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

Engel v. Hagedorn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 19, 1991
170 A.D.2d 301 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Engel v. Hagedorn

Case Details

Full title:ELIOT ENGEL, Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER HAGEDORN et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Feb 19, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 301 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
566 N.Y.S.2d 25

Citing Cases

Wylie v. Consolidated Rail Corporation

That argument was not raised before Supreme Court. In any event, there is no merit to that argument (see,…

Travelers Cas. Sur. v. Honeywell Intl.

Instead, it broadly calls for all documents pertaining to Weitz's clients' claims and all of Weitz's…