Ligoure v. City of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 27 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | 2014-02730 |
| Citation | 9 N.Y.S.3d 678,128 A.D.3d 1027,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04456 |
| Parties | Ricardo LIGOURE, respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., appellants, et al., defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
128 A.D.3d 1027
9 N.Y.S.3d 678
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04456
Ricardo LIGOURE, respondent
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., appellants, et al., defendant.
2014-02730
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 27, 2015.
London Fischer LLP, New York, N.Y. (Nicholas O. Paslow of counsel), for appellants.
G.K. Law Practice P.C. (Sacks and Sacks LLP, New York, N.Y. [Scott N. Singer and Victoria V. Bach ], of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
Opinion
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants City of New York, New York City Economic Development Corporation, Turner Construction Company, Rite–Way Demolition, Inc., and Rite–Way Internal Removal, Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated February 27, 2014, as denied that branch of their motion which was pursuant
to CPLR 3103 for a protective order preventing the disclosure of certain witness statements and certain investigation and inspection reports.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
CPLR 3101(a) mandates “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” Unlimited disclosure is not mandated, however, and a court may issue a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 denying, limiting, conditioning or regulating the use of any disclosure device “to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person or the courts” (CPLR 3103 [a] ; see Nimkoff v. Central Park Plaza Assoc., LLC, 123 A.D.3d 679, 680–681, 997 N.Y.S.2d 698 ; Diaz v. City of New York, 117 A.D.3d 777, 985 N.Y.S.2d 695 ; County of Suffolk v. Long Is. Power Auth., 100 A.D.3d 944, 946, 954 N.Y.S.2d 619 ). “The supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent an improvident exercise of that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc.
...N.Y.S.3d 352 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Gould v. Decolator, 131 A.D.3d 445, 447, 15 N.Y.S.3d 138 ; Ligoure v. City of New York, 128 A.D.3d 1027, 1028, 9 N.Y.S.3d 678 ; Daniels v. City of New York, 117 A.D.3d 981, 986 N.Y.S.2d 516 ). Nevertheless, this Court is “vested with a co......
-
Project Veritas v. N.Y. Times Co.
...trial court and, absent an improvident exercise of that discretion, its determination will not be disturbed" ( Ligoure v. City of New York , 128 A.D.3d 1027, 1028 [2d Dept. 2015] ).Project Veritas accuses the Times of improperly obtaining its privileged materials without authorization. In a......
-
Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc.
...N.Y.S.3d 352 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Gould v. Decolator, 131 A.D.3d 445, 447, 15 N.Y.S.3d 138 ; Ligoure v. City of New York, 128 A.D.3d 1027, 1028, 9 N.Y.S.3d 678 ; Daniels v. City of New York, 117 A.D.3d 981, 986 N.Y.S.2d 516 ). Nevertheless, this Court is “vested with a co......
-
Micro-Link, LLC v. Town of Amherst
...with specificity that the material was prepared exclusively in anticipation of litigation’ " ( Ligoure v. City of New York, 128 A.D.3d 1027, 1028, 9 N.Y.S.3d 678 [2d Dept.2015] ).We conclude that defendant met its burden of establishing that the forensic accountant and his firm were retaine......