Southampton Taxpayers Against Reassessment v. Assessor of Village of Southampton
| Decision Date | 15 October 1991 |
| Parties | SOUTHAMPTON TAXPAYERS AGAINST REASSESSMENT, et al., Appellants, v. ASSESSOR OF THE VILLAGE OF SOUTHAMPTON, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C., Garden City (William D. Siegel and Karen S. Owens, of counsel), for appellants.
Bivona & Gilmartin, Southampton (John C. Bivona, on the brief), for respondents.
Before KUNZEMAN, J.P., and HARWOOD, EIBER and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for a judgment declaring certain reassessments of real property in the Village of Southampton invalid, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cromarty, J.), dated February 8, 1990, as denied their motion for a protective order against notices to take depositions upon oral examination, a notice for discovery and inspection, and certain enumerated requests in the defendants' demand for a verified bill of particulars.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs, the appellants' time to comply with the defendants' demand for a verified bill of particulars and notice for discovery and inspection is extended until 60 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry, and the depositions shall be conducted at times and places to be set forth in written notices of at least 10 days, or at such times and places as the parties may agree.
On appeal, the plaintiffs maintain that the Supreme Court erred in denying their motion for a protective order because the disclosure sought by the defendants is not relevant to this action. We disagree. It is settled law that parties to an action are entitled to reasonable discovery of "any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity" (see, Allen v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406, 288 N.Y.S.2d 449, 235 N.E.2d 430; Fell v. Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. at Columbia-Presbyt. Med. Center, 98 A.D.2d 624, 469 N.Y.S.2d 375). CPLR 3101(a), which permits discovery of "all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action", has thus been liberally construed to include evidence required for preparation for trial, as well as "testimony or documents which may lead to the disclosure of admissible proof" (Fell v. Presbyterian Hosp., supra, at 625, 469 N.Y.S.2d 375; Shutt v. Pooley, 43 A.D.2d 59, 349...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seaman v. Fichet-Bauche North America, Inc.
... ... The plaintiff brought a prior action against the seller of an allegedly defective safe. This ... ...
-
Lipco Elec. Corp. v. ASG Consulting Corp., 2004 NY Slip Op 50967(U) (NY 8/18/2004), 8775/01.
...evidence provided that the production of such documents should lead to the disclosure of admissible evidence. Southampton Taxpayers Against Reassessment v. Assessor of the Vill. of Southampton, 176 A.D.2d 795 (2nd Dept., 1991); and Fell v. Presbyterian Hosp. in the City of New York, 98 A.D.......
-
Riordan v. Barnes
...Pharmacy, Inc., 81 A.D.3d 611, 915 N.Y.S.2d 865; Matter of Southampton Taxpayers Against Reassessment v. Assessor of Vil. of Southampton, 176 A.D.2d 795, 796, 575 N.Y.S.2d 125). “The test is one of usefulness and reason, and CPLR 3101(a) should be construed to permit discovery of testimony ......
-
Montalvo v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
...& Beauty Spa, 205 A.D.2d 589, 613 N.Y.S.2d 419 ; Matter of Southampton Taxpayers Against Reassessment v. Assessor of Vil. of Southampton, 176 A.D.2d 795, 796, 575 N.Y.S.2d 125; Shutt v. Pooley, 43 A.D.2d 59, 349 N.Y.S.2d 839). The plaintiffs demonstrated that an inspection by their attorney......