From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Krygier v. Airweld, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 7, 1991
176 A.D.2d 701 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

October 7, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aronin, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant's assertion, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting a protective order proscribing the dissemination of confidential information relating to an "R-205 Regulator". Pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a), "[t]he court may at any time on its own initiative, or on motion of any other party or witness, make a protective order denying, limiting, conditioning or regulating the use of any disclosure device". Its discretion in such matters is broad (see, Van Eycken v. Van Eycken, 142 A.D.2d 576) and upon our review of the record we find that the court acted properly (see, Tymko v K-Mart Discount Stores, 75 A.D.2d 987; Snyder v. Parke, Davis Co., 56 A.D.2d 536; McLaughlin v. G.D. Searle, Inc., 38 A.D.2d 810). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Krygier v. Airweld, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 7, 1991
176 A.D.2d 701 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Krygier v. Airweld, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:GRANZYNA KRYGIER, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of…

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

Date published: Oct 7, 1991

Citations

176 A.D.2d 701 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
574 N.Y.S.2d 791

Citing Cases

Plotnik v. Greenberg

Present — Green, J.P., Balio, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ. Order unanimously modified on the law and as…

Page v. Muze, Inc.

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs. The determination as to the terms and provisions of…