DiFresco v. Starin
| Decision Date | 20 April 1981 |
| Citation | 81 A.D.2d 629,438 N.Y.S.2d 126 |
| Parties | Augustine DiFRESCO et al., Respondents, v. Frank J. STARIN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lester Holtzman, New York City (Abraham L. Shapiro and Gerald Richman, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Jack Baum, Brooklyn, for respondents.
Before DAMIANI, J. P., and LAZER, MANGANO and GIBBONS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 29, 1980, which granted plaintiffs' motion to preclude defendant from using at the trial, inter alia, certain records, reports and statements in the possession of the Allstate Insurance Company "unless * * * are produced and made available to the plaintiff[s]."
Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The time to produce the materials is extended until 20 days after service upon defendant of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry.
Initially, we note that this court is not bound by the two prior orders of Special Term. The doctrine of the law of the case does not apply in an appellate court where the prior order was made by a court of subordinate jurisdiction from which no appeal was taken (see Klein v. Smigel, 44 A.D.2d 248, 354 N.Y.S.2d 117, affd. 36 N.Y.2d 809, 370 N.Y.S.2d 897, 331 N.E.2d 679; Bellavia v. Allied Elec. Motor Serv., 46 A.D.2d 807, 361 N.Y.S.2d 193; Walker v. Gerli, 257 App.Div. 249, 12 N.Y.S.2d 942; see, also, Martin v. City of Cohoes, 37 N.Y.2d 162, 371 N.Y.S.2d 687, 332 N.E.2d 867).
Turning to the merits, we hold that the fact that both the plaintiffs and the defendant are insured by the same carrier, viz., Allstate Insurance Company, and that defendant's counsel was retained by Allstate, present adequate special circumstances under CPLR 3101 (subd. par. for Special Term's order requiring the defendant to produce the material requested. We also note that plaintiff Augustine DiFresco's statement, which was given to Allstate's representative, was made in compliance with the usual co-operation and full disclosure clause in his liability policy. Therefore, the defendant should not be able to claim that the statement is shielded by the "work product" privilege (see Johnson v. Johnson, 28 Misc.2d 721, 217 N.Y.S.2d 120; see, also, Ann. 18 A.L.R.3d 482, 487).
Accordingly, Special Term's order constituted a proper exercise of its discretion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Park Knoll Associates v. Schmidt
...court where the prior order was made by a court of subordinate jurisdiction from which no appeal was taken" (Di Fresco v. Starin, 81 A.D.2d 629, 630, 438 N.Y.S.2d 126; see Klein v. Smigel, 44 A.D.2d 248, 354 N.Y.S.2d 117, affd. 36 N.Y.2d 809, 370 N.Y.S.2d 897, 331 N.E.2d 679; see, also, Mar......
-
Garguilio v. Garguilio
...Post v. Post, 141 A.D.2d 517, 518, 529 N.Y.S.2d 340; Zappollo v. Putnam Hosp. Center, 117 A.D.2d 597, 498 N.Y.S.2d 66; DiFresco v. Starin, 81 A.D.2d 629, 438 N.Y.S.2d 126). In any event, the present record does not support the defendant's argument that the doctrine of the law of the case wa......
-
Gaeta v. New York News Inc.
...on the merits (see Jarai-Scheer Corp. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., 52 A.D.2d 555, 382 N.Y.S.2d 314; DiFresco v. Starin, 81 A.D.2d 629, 438 N.Y.S.2d 126). In seeking reversal, they point to the absence of any proof in the record to reflect that the reporter proceeded in a gross......
-
Gargiulo v. Oppenheim
...inapplicable in an appellate court where the prior determination was made by a court of subordinate jurisdiction (Di Fresco v. Starin, 81 A.D.2d 629, 630, 438 N.Y.S.2d 126; see Klein v. Smigel, 44 A.D.2d 248, 354 N.Y.S.2d 117, affd. 36 N.Y.2d 809, 370 N.Y.S.2d 897, 331 N.E.2d In general, th......