From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kellner v. General Motors Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 26, 2000
273 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued April 17, 2000.

July 26, 2000.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant General Motors Corp. appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated July 2, 1999, granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to compel the production of the documents demanded in Items 9 and 10 of their supplemental notice for discovery and inspection, and denied its cross motion for a protective order concerning those documents.

Kirkland Ellis, Washington, D.C. (Jay P. Lefkowitz and Kelion N. Kasler of counsel), and Lavin, Coleman, O'Neil, Ricci, Finarelli Gray, New York, N.Y. (Elizabeth A. Weill of counsel), for appellant.

Sullivan Papain Block McGrath Cannavo, P.C., New York, N Y (Nicholas Papain, Stephen C. Glasser, and Stewart G. Milch of counsel), for respondents.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Supreme Court's determination that the subject documents were not protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, as attorney work product, or as material prepared for litigation (see, CPLR 3101[b], [c], [d][2]; 4503) was a provident exercise of discretion. The burden of establishing that disputed material is exempt from disclosure is on the party opposing discovery (see, Crazytown Furniture v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 145 A.D.2d 402, 403; Bloss v. Ford Motor Co., 126 A.D.2d 804, 805), and conclusory allegations of privilege are not sufficient to satisfy that burden (see, Bib Constr. Co. v. City of Poughkeepsie, 260 A.D.2d 590). Despite the fact that the appellant labelled the documents a "Litigation Study", the primary impetus for and predominant purpose of the study was to improve the safety and design of the seating components in its vehicles. Moreover, there is no evidence that the study was generated to assist the legal staff in the defense of any pending or future litigation.


Summaries of

Kellner v. General Motors Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 26, 2000
273 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Kellner v. General Motors Corporation

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE KELLNER, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION…

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

Date published: Jul 26, 2000

Citations

273 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
712 N.Y.S.2d 363

Citing Cases

Vigilante v. Ghetto Kids, Inc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. The burden of establishing that disputed material is exempt…

Haffner v. Lester

Here, Arvanitakis failed to meet this burden. It should first be noted that, to the extent the motion is made…