From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Orlando v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 23, 2003
306 A.D.2d 453 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-08486

Submitted May 28, 2003.

June 23, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated May 30, 2002, as denied those branches of his motion which were to strike the answer of the defendant City of New York, or, in the alternative, to compel certain disclosure from that defendant.

Michael Joseph J. Barnas, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Julie Steiner of counsel; Ajay Chanayil on the brief), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to compel the production of maintenance and other requested records that postdated the plaintiff's accident (see Watson v. FHE Servs., 257 A.D.2d 618; Cleland v. 60-02 Woodside Corp., 221 A.D.2d 307, 308; cf. DeRoche v. Methodist Hosp. of Brooklyn, 249 A.D.2d 438, 439).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Orlando v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 23, 2003
306 A.D.2d 453 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Orlando v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:PHILIP ORLANDO, appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, respondent, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Jun 23, 2003

Citations

306 A.D.2d 453 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
761 N.Y.S.2d 528

Citing Cases

Rivera v. Roman Catholic Diocese Brooklyn & Queens

As to the demand for post accident repair records, defendants properly contend that the same are not…

Graham v. Kone, Inc.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. CPLR 3101(a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure…