From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Curran v. Upjohn Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 25, 1986
122 A.D.2d 929 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

August 25, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Isseks, J.).


Order modified by deleting (1) the fourth, fifth, and sixth decretal paragraphs thereof and (2) from the third decretal paragraph thereof the following: "but the remainder of the notice is vacated with leave to serve a more specific notice after the completion of depositions", and substituting therefor provisions denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which sought to vacate the four notices to produce and granting that branch of Upjohn's cross motion which sought to compel compliance with the aforenoted notices to produce. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The plaintiff's time to comply with the aforenoted notices to produce is extended until 30 days after service upon him of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry.

Although "[a] party is generally free to choose both the [disclosure] devices it wishes to use and the order in which to use them" (Barouh Eaton Allen Corp. v International Business Machs. Corp., 76 A.D.2d 873, 874), one method of disclosure should be completed before resorting to another (see, Giffords Oil Co. v Spinogatti, 96 A.D.2d 851). Under the circumstances of the case at bar, we find that Special Term did not abuse its discretion in directing that oral depositions be completed prior to service of a properly drafted set of interrogatories (see, CPLR 3103 [a]; Katz v Posner, 23 A.D.2d 774; cf. Barouh Eaton Allen Corp. v International Business Machs. Corp., supra). In this regard, it is not the function of this court or Special Term to prune a palpably improper set of interrogatories (see, Jimmbo Corp. v Langtry Realty Corp., 120 A.D.2d 642; Manzo v Westchester Rockland Newspapers, 106 A.D.2d 492).

However, Special Term was incorrect in its finding that the four notices to produce were not reasonably particular with respect to the information requested (see, CPLR 3120 [a] [1] [i]). Accordingly, the protective provisions of the order granted as to each notice to produce are hereby vacated and the plaintiffs are directed to comply with the requests within the time heretofore indicated. Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Thompson and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Curran v. Upjohn Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 25, 1986
122 A.D.2d 929 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Curran v. Upjohn Company

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD P. CURRAN, as Father and Natural Guardian of KATHLEEN S. CURRAN…

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

Date published: Aug 25, 1986

Citations

122 A.D.2d 929 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Sanford Chiropractic, P.C. v. New S. Ins. Co.

( Samsung Am., Inc. v Yugoslav-Korean Consulting & Trading Co., Inc. , 199 AD2d 48, 49 [1st Dept 1993]…

Samsung America v. Yugoslav-Korean Consulting

Further, the overly broad interrogatories which called for all bank accounts and information concerning tax…