D'Alessio v. Nabisco, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 October 1986 |
| Citation | 123 A.D.2d 816,507 N.Y.S.2d 431 |
| Parties | John D'ALESSIO, Appellant-Respondent, v. NABISCO, INC., et al., Respondents-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lurie and Nicholson, New York City (Samuel J. Lurie, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Alexander, Ash, Schwartz & Cohen, P.C., New York City (Sheldon Bunin, of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
Before BROWN, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, LAWRENCE and KOOPER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated December 19, 1984, as denied his motion to strike the defendants' answer or to compel discovery of certain items demanded in his notice and supplemental notice for discovery and inspection, and the defendants cross-appeal from so much of the same order as directed them to comply with certain of the plaintiff's discovery demands.
ORDERED that the order is modified, by deleting the provisions thereof which granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for discovery of the material demanded in items 12a, 14 and 18 of the plaintiff's notice for discovery and inspection, and items 4(b), 4(d), 4(f), 7(a), 7(e), 7(g), 7(i), 8(a) and 14 of the plaintiff's supplemental notice for discovery and inspection, and substituting therefor provisions denying those branches of the motion. As so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the defendants' time to comply with item 21 of the plaintiff's notice for discovery and inspection and items 7(k) and 9 of the supplemental notice for discovery and inspection is hereby extended until 30 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.
We note that the defendants' failure to timely move for a protective order did not constitute a waiver of their right to subsequently object to certain discovery demands on the grounds that the items were privileged, or constituted attorney's work product, or material prepared for litigation (Soifer v. Mount Sinai Hosp., 63 A.D.2d 713, 405 N.Y.S.2d 116; Whittington v. Rectors, Wardens & Vestry of Church of Advent, 54 A.D.2d 732, 387 N.Y.S.2d 674).
Further, with respect to those items which sought discovery of information with respect to the defendant Nabisco's post-accident investigation, it is clear that any written report of an accident prepared in the regular course of business is properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mendelowitz v. Xerox Corp.
...copiers allegedly operated by decedent, or at least models shown to be substantially similar (citing, inter alia, D'Alessio v. Nabisco, Inc., 123 A.D.2d 816, 507 N.Y.S.2d 431; Zimmerman v. New York City Transit Authority, 115 A.D.2d 738, 496 N.Y.S.2d 547; Petty v. Riverbay Corp., 92 A.D.2d ......
-
Lagman v. Overhead Door Corp., 16831/09.
...similar to plaintiff's accident]; DeDivitis v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., 228 A.D.2d 963 [3d Dept 1996] ; D'Alessio v. Nabisco, 123 A.D.2d 816 [2d Dept 1986] ; Johantgen v. Hobart Mfg. Co., 64 A.D.2d 858 [4th Dept 1978] [plaintiff entitled to disclosure regarding other or similar acci......
-
Gandy v. Larkins
...or mental disability at the time of the accident, her condition has not been placed in controversy (see, D'Alessio v. Nabisco, Inc., 123 A.D.2d 816, 817, 507 N.Y.S.2d 431). Nor has the defendant's physical condition been placed in controversy by the plaintiff's unsupported allegations that ......
-
Cannistra by Cannistra v. Putnam County
...Robert suffered from any mental or physical disability at the time of the accident (see, Koump v. Smith, supra; D'Alessio v. Nabisco, Inc., 123 A.D.2d 816, 817, 507 N.Y.S.2d 431; Gaglia v. Wells, 112 A.D.2d 138, 139, 490 N.Y.S.2d In any event, the demand for authorizations pertaining to all......