From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

White Plains Urban Renewal Agency v. Einhorn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 27, 1972
38 A.D.2d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

Opinion

March 27, 1972


In a condemnation proceeding, the property owners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 7, 1971, which granted petitioner's motion for a protective order vacating the owners' notice for a pretrial examination of petitioner. Order affirmed, without costs. The case of City of Binghamton v. Arlington Hotel ( 30 A.D.2d 585 [Third Dept.]), relied upon by appellants, is inapplicable, for the rule in the Third Department (22 NYCRR 839.3) differs in language and scope from the rule in this Department ( 22 NYCRR 678.1) . In affirming the order herein we are merely holding that the appraisals in question are not subject to pretrial disclosure. We reach no other question. Munder, Acting P.J., Martuscello, Shapiro, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

White Plains Urban Renewal Agency v. Einhorn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 27, 1972
38 A.D.2d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)
Case details for

White Plains Urban Renewal Agency v. Einhorn

Case Details

Full title:WHITE PLAINS URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY, Respondent, v. JOSEPH J. EINHORN et…

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

Date published: Mar 27, 1972

Citations

38 A.D.2d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

Citing Cases

White Plains Urban v. 56 Grand Street Assoc

The material sought is both material and necessary (see Allen v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403,…

Newburgh Urban Renewal Agency v. Saffioti

The bills of particulars demanded in these proceedings seek to compel production of items which are…