Roth v. American Colonial Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 March 1990
• Citation: Roth v. American Colonial Ins. Co., 553 N.Y.S.2d 13, 159 A.D.2d 370 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
• Parties: Elaine ROTH et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICAN COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent, and Elisam Realty Corp., Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 13

553 N.Y.S.2d 13

159 A.D.2d 370

Elaine ROTH et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERICAN COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent and Elisam Realty Corp., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

March 22, 1990.

D.T. D'Antonio, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.

S.J. DeSantis, New York City, for defendant-respondent.

Before KUPFERMAN, J.P., and ROSS, MILONAS, ROSENBERGER and ELLERIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered on or about September 7, 1988, which granted that part of defendant-respondent American Colonial's cross motion to compel compliance by the plaintiff Roth with a notice for discovery and inspection, unanimously reversed to the extent appealed from, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, to deny item 9 of the notice which requested production of the plaintiff's state and federal income tax returns from 1974 to the date of the notice in 1988.

This is an action by the mortgagees against the owner and insurer of property located in the Bronx, to recover for a fire loss suffered at the premises.

As limited by their brief, plaintiffs appeal only from that portion of the order which directed compliance with item 9 of the notice for discovery and inspection, which calls for the production of the income tax returns.

Unless there is a strong...