From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weininger v. Hagedorn Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 28, 1994
203 A.D.2d 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

April 28, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.).


Plaintiffs' subpoena was properly quashed insofar as it sought lease agreements, tax returns and other materials relating to the leasing of the premises where the accident occurred, such materials being "clearly irrelevant" (Grotallio v Soft Drink Leasing Corp., 97 A.D.2d 383) to the applicability of Labor Law § 240. Concerning the expected testimony of plaintiffs' expert economist, any additional disclosure of the subject matter thereof could lead to the divulgence of facts upon which his opinion is based, and therefore should not have been directed (Krygier v Airweld, Inc., 176 A.D.2d 700).

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ross, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Weininger v. Hagedorn Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 28, 1994
203 A.D.2d 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Weininger v. Hagedorn Company

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY WEININGER et al., Appellants, v. HAGEDORN COMPANY et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 28, 1994

Citations

203 A.D.2d 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
611 N.Y.S.2d 10

Citing Cases

Tate-Mitros v. MTA N.Y.C. Transit

The court granted permission for testimony by Nicholas Bellizzi, a transportation engineer for whom CPLR…

Hughey v. RHM-88, LLC

While movants seek more excruciating detail, CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) only requires the general "substance of the…