Mogollon v. South African Marine Corp., Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 May 1982 |
| Citation | 88 A.D.2d 586,449 N.Y.S.2d 791 |
| Parties | Valentin MOGOLLON, Respondent, v. SOUTH AFRICAN MARINE CORP., INC., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
McHugh, Leonard & O'Conor, New York City (James M. Hazen, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Diego Camarda, Brooklyn, for respondent.
Before DAMIANI, J. P., and TITONE, GULOTTA and BRACKEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a personal injury action, defendant appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, the first, dated March 9, 1981, inter alia, directed it to furnish plaintiff with a copy of a certain statement, and the second, dated June 9, 1981, denied its motion to strike plaintiff's interrogatories.
Orders affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements. Defendant's time to furnish a copy of the statement and to answer the interrogatories is extended until 20 days after service upon it of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry.
The document in issue is an accident report prepared by the investigator employed by the attorney for the defendant. The report is based on the oral account of one of defendant's employees given on the day of the accident. The document is not an attorney's work product protected by CPLR 3101 (subd. ), since the report could have been made by a lay person (see Hoffman v. Ro-San Manor, 73 A.D.2d 207, 425 N.Y.S.2d 619; Wolf v. Davis, 108 Misc.2d 19, 436 N.Y.S.2d 946; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons.Laws of N.Y., Book 7B, CPLR C3101:28). Nor is the report protected from disclosure under CPLR 3101 (subd. ), since it was not prepared exclusively for litigation (see Pataki v. Kiseda, 80 A.D.2d 100, 437 N.Y.S.2d 692, mot. for lv. to app. dsmd. 54 N.Y.2d 831; Braun v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 67 A.D.2d 898, 413 N.Y.S.2d 181).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bekins Storage Co., Matter of
...1980] ) acting as an attorney, not in a nonlegal, representative, investigative or other capacity (Mogollon v. South African Marine Corp., 88 A.D.2d 586, 587, 449 N.Y.S.2d 791 [2d Dept., 1982] ) it is the substantial equivalent of the New York work product doctrine. (Compare, CPL 240.10, su......
-
Stein v. Trump Village Section No. 4, Inc.
...Id. at 103-105, 437 N.Y.S.2d 692). Pataki 's logic and findings have since been followed by the courts (Mogollon v. South African Marine Corp., 88 A.D.2d 586, 449 N.Y.S.2d 791 (1982); Louis v. All City Elevator Inc., 115 Misc.2d 1010, 454 N.Y.S.2d 932). In the latter case, Mr. Justice Spode......
-
Louis v. All City Elevator, Inc.
...is broad enough and is indeed intended to include investigative reports prepared by an insurance carrier. Mogollon v. South African Marine Corp., 88 A.D.2d 586, 449 N.Y.S.2d 791 (1982). The other modification effected in the 1980 version of subdivision (g) is the elimination of the qualific......