From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Stewart v. N.Y. City Transit Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 5, 1985
112 A.D.2d 939 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

August 5, 1985

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


Order modified, as a matter of discretion, by deleting therefrom items Nos. 1 and 3, and so much of item No. 2 as requested the addresses of the individuals described therein. As so modified, order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

It is well established that disclosure "to aid in bringing an action" (CPLR 3102 [c]) authorizes discovery to allow a plaintiff to frame a complaint and to obtain the identity of the prospective defendants ( Matter of Weaver v. Waterville Knitting Mills, 78 A.D.2d 574; Matter of Houlihan-Parnes, Realtors [ Cantor, Fitzgerald Co.], 58 A.D.2d 629). Of particular importance, however, is the caveat that "[p]re-action disclosure under CPLR 3102 (c) is not available to the would-be plaintiff to determine if he has a cause of action" (Seigel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3102:4, p 263). This limitation is "designed to prevent the initiation of troublesome and expensive procedures, based upon a mere suspicion, which may annoy and intrude upon an innocent party. Where, however, the facts alleged state a cause of action, the protection of a party's affairs is no longer the primary consideration and an examination to determine the identities of the parties and what form or forms the action should take is appropriate" ( Matter of Houlihan-Parnes, Realtors [ Cantor, Fitzgerald Co.], supra, at p 630).

In the instant case, Special Term properly concluded that petitioner had alleged sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case against the appellants. Thus, the threshold requirement of CPLR 3102 (c) has been met. Moreover, to the extent indicated, we agree with Special Term's determination that the requested information was necessary to identify prospective defendants, as well as to determine the form or forms which the action should take. Accordingly, Special Term's order, to the extent indicated, was appropriate and did not constitute an abuse of discretion ( Matter of Urban v. Hooker Chems. Plastics Corp., 75 A.D.2d 720). Lazer, J.P., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Stewart v. N.Y. City Transit Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 5, 1985
112 A.D.2d 939 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Matter of Stewart v. N.Y. City Transit Auth

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MILLARD F. STEWART, as Administrator of the Estate of…

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

Date published: Aug 5, 1985

Citations

112 A.D.2d 939 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Sokolova v. City of New York

Where, however, the facts alleged state a cause of action, the protection of a party's affairs is no longer…

Saloman v. Porter

As set forth in Matter of Leff , supra at p.1240, "(D)isclosure to ‘aid in bringing an action’ ( CPLR 3102[d]…