Jobe v. Quick Coin Four, Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Mitchell v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 31686 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    For those conditions that plaintiff affirmatively placed at issue, plaintiff "may not insulate from disclosure material necessary to the defense concerning that condition." (Hoenig v Westphal, 52 NY2d 605, 610, 439 NYS2d 831 [1981]; Jobe v Quick Coin Four, Inc., No. 157082/2018, 2020 WL 3545688, at *2 [2020]). In resolving this discovery dispute, the court must balance the competing interests presented and "the need for discovery must be weighed against any special burden to be borne by the opposing party" (Kavanagh v Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 92 NY2d 952, 954, 705 NE2d 1197, 683 NYS2d 156 [1998] [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]).

  2. Scopia Capital Mgmt. v. Quinn

    2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 32557 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)

    (Roman Catholic Church of Good Shepherd v Tempco Sys., 202 AD2d 257, 258, 608 NYS2d 647 [1st Dept 1994]).Jobe v Quick Coin Four, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 32071(U), *1-2 (Sup Ct, NY County 2020).