Roman Catholic Church of the Good Shepard v. Tempco Systems

• Decision Date: 10 March 1994
• Citation: 202 A.D.2d 257,608 N.Y.S.2d 647
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TEMPCO SYSTEMS and Rheem Manufacturing Corp., Defendants-Respondents. RHEEM MANUFACTURING CORP., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DORNBACK FURNACE & FOUNDRY CO., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents. Norman A. LEON, et al., Second Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. EXCELSIOR INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Second Third-Party Defendants-Respondents, and D & H Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., Second Third-Party Defendant. EXCELSIOR INSURANCE COMPANY, Fourth-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. COSTE AGENCY, Fourth-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Page 647

608 N.Y.S.2d 647

202 A.D.2d 257

The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TEMPCO SYSTEMS and Rheem Manufacturing Corp.,

Defendants-Respondents.

RHEEM MANUFACTURING CORP., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DORNBACK FURNACE & FOUNDRY CO., et al., Third-Party

Defendants-Respondents.

Norman A. LEON, et al., Second Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. EXCELSIOR INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Second Third-Party

Defendants-Respondents,

and

D & H Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., Second Third-Party

Defendant.

EXCELSIOR INSURANCE COMPANY, Fourth-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. COSTE AGENCY, Fourth-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department.

March 10, 1994.

Before ROSENBERGER, J.P., and ROSS, ASCH, RUBIN and TOM, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stuart Ain, J.), entered on or about January 8, 1992, which, inter alia, granted the motions by defendant and third-party plaintiff Rheem Manufacturing Corp., and third-party defendants Sundstrand Hydraulics and Wayne Home Equipment, Inc. ("defendants") to compel disclosure requests for certain written authorizations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court did not abuse its discretion in directing plaintiffs to respond to the defendants' notices of discovery and inspection requiring plaintiffs to provide written authorizations for the release of, inter alia, the records of non-party insurers and/or adjusters pertaining to insurance claims made and subsequently paid to the plaintiffs for the fire loss sustained on their property which forms the basis for the underlying action. Article 31 of the CPLR, implementing the strong policy of this State favoring disclosure, specifically provides that "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action" (CPLR 3101[a], with the words "material and necessary" liberally interpreted to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist in sharpening the issues for trial (Allen v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 405, 288 N.Y.S.2d 449, 235 N.E.2d 430). The burden of showing that the disclosure sought is improper is upon the party asserting it, the plaintiffs herein (Koump v. Smith, 25 N.Y.2d 287, 294, 303 N.Y.S.2d 858, 250 N.E.2d 857), since reports of insurance investigators or adjusters which were prepared before a claim was either paid or...