Bombard v. Albany County
| Decision Date | 26 May 1983 |
| Parties | Richard BOMBARD et al., Respondents, v. COUNTY OF ALBANY, Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Hubert D. Miles, Albany (H. Ward Hamlin, Jr., Albany, of counsel), for appellant.
Ralph A. Nocera, Schenectady (Guido A. Loyola, Schenectady, of counsel), for respondents.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and SWEENEY, MAIN, CASEY and WEISS, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered September 22, 1982 in Albany County, which granted plaintiffs' motion for a protective order striking portions of defendant County of Albany's demand for the identity of certain witnesses.
On July 14, 1981, plaintiff Richard Bombard fell on a stairway in the Albany County Airport. After an action was commenced by Bombard and his wife against the County of Albany and Ancorp National Services, Inc., lessee of the premises, defendant county, with its answer, served a demand for the names and addresses of witnesses who had been witnesses to the accident as well as a like demand for witnesses to the acts of negligence alleged in the complaint and to any actual or constructive notice of any alleged defective condition on the premises in question. Plaintiffs moved to strike those portions of the demand requesting the identity of anyone other than witnesses to the fall. Special Term granted plaintiffs' motion without opinion. This appeal by defendant County of Albany ensued. We reverse.
When this issue was before us on a prior occasion, i.e., whether the identity of witnesses who could testify to the notice and existence of a defective condition which was the competent producing cause of an accident should be disclosed, we concluded that knowledge of the identity of witnesses to the condition, as distinguished from the identity of witnesses to the accident or occurrence, was "the work product of the attorney or material prepared for litigation" and was, therefore, protected under CPLR 3101 (subds. ) (Hennessy v. Benerofe, 63 A.D.2d 779, 404 N.Y.S.2d 756). We are now of the view that the articulation of our reasons supportive of the protective relief granted plaintiff in Hennessy was in response to our erroneous perception that defendant was demanding the identity of all witnesses plaintiff planned to use at trial, and that the demand was, therefore, overbroad. Here, as in Hennessy, the demand is for "notice" witnesses in addition to witnesses...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Free Park Assocs. v. Cepeda
...supporting the above quote, are Rios v. Donovan, 21 A.D.2d 409, 250 N.Y.S.2d 818 (1st Dept.1964), and Bombard v. County of Albany, 94 A.D.2d 910, 463 N.Y.S.2d 633 (3d Dept.1983). Based upon the above, Petitioner shall answer Demand No.1, and disclose the names and addresses of witnesses who......
-
Avila v. State, 72745
...Transp. Auth., 40 A.D.2d 248, 339 N.Y.S.2d 255.) A similar rule applies to notice and admission witnesses. (Bombard v. County of Albany, 94 A.D.2d 910, 463 N.Y.S.2d 633, appeal dismissed, 60 N.Y.2d 643; Wolf v. Davis, 108 Misc.2d 19, 436 N.Y.S.2d 946.) We see no reason why this principle sh......
-
Gechoff v. Our Lady of Victory Hosp.
... ... to the existence of and defendant's notice of a defective condition in the lobby (see, Bombard v. County of Albany, 94 A.D.2d 910, 463 N.Y.S.2d 633; O'Connor v. Larson, 74 A.D.2d 734, 425 ... ...