From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

County of Chemung v. Fenwal, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 23, 1985
111 A.D.2d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

May 23, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Chemung County (Crew, J.).


In an action to recover for property damages resulting from an explosion at a solid waste disposal facility operated by plaintiff, defendant Fenwal, Inc., contractually charged with the duty to inspect and service the explosion protective system installed at the waste facility, appeals from so much of an order as compels it to answer certain written interrogatories within 30 days of service upon it of the amended order.

The factual background of this case can be simply stated. Following inspection and service by Fenwal of the explosion protective system on December 14, 1978, December 18, 1978 and January 16, 1979, an explosion occurred at plaintiff's solid waste disposal facility causing extensive property damage. On February 3, 1981, plaintiff commenced an action sounding in negligence, strict products liability and breach of warranty against Fenwal and other corporate entities. On April 21, 1983, plaintiff served 15 written interrogatories upon Fenwal. Fenwal neither moved for a protective order (CPLR 3103) nor objected in writing (CPLR 3133). By notice of motion dated February 29, 1984, plaintiff moved for a conditional order of resolution against Fenwal (CPLR 3126). By order entered June 13, 1984, as amended by order entered July 10, 1984, Special Term granted plaintiff's motion and ordered Fenwal to answer all the propounded interrogatories within 30 days of service upon it of the amended order.

Since Fenwal has not sustained its burden of establishing that the information sought is immune from discovery under CPLR 3101, its unsworn assertions by counsel being inadequate for this purpose, the order as amended must be affirmed.

When interrogatories are served upon a party after commencement of an action (CPLR 3130), the party upon whom they are served must, within 10 days after service, move upon notice to strike out any interrogatory, stating the ground for objection (CPLR 3133 [a]). Here, Fenwal did not so move. In an action to recover property damages, when no claim of privilege or immunity is raised concerning information sought through interrogatories, failure to timely move to strike the interrogatories forecloses all inquiry into the propriety of the information sought ( Long Is. Region Natl. Assn. For Advancement of Colored People v. Town of North Hempstead, 94 A.D.2d 789).

Order as amended modified, on the facts, with costs to plaintiff; defendant Fenwall, Inc., directed to fully answer interrogatory Nos. "1 — 15" inclusive within 20 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered upon this decision with notice of entry; and, as so modified, affirmed. Mahoney, P.J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

County of Chemung v. Fenwal, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 23, 1985
111 A.D.2d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

County of Chemung v. Fenwal, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:COUNTY OF CHEMUNG, Respondent, v. FENWAL, INC., Appellant, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: May 23, 1985

Citations

111 A.D.2d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Grems v. City of Oneida

Accordingly, Supreme Court properly ruled that Ford had waived the right to object and granted plaintiffs'…

Gardner v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.

Supervision of disclosure is within the sphere of the trial court's broad discretionary power and, absent…