From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fierman v. Cirillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 4, 1972
40 A.D.2d 976 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

Summary

In Fierman (40 A.D.2d 976, supra) the record on appeal indicates that the action was one for personal injuries in negligence and the notice for discovery and inspection was served before all pretrial proceedings had been completed.

Summary of this case from Mosca v. Pensky

Opinion

December 4, 1972


In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, loss of services and medical expenses, defendants appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, dated June 6, 1972, which (a) denied their motion for a protective order vacating plaintiffs' notice of discovery and inspection of an automobile liability insurance policy issued to the defendant automobile owner and (b) directed said defendant to produce the policy and make it available for discovery and inspection and, (2) as limited by their brief, from so much of a second order of the same court, dated August 14, 1972, as, upon renewal of said motion, adhered to the original determination. Appeal from order dated June 6, 1972, dismissed, as academic. That order was superseded by the order of August 14, 1972. Order dated August 14, 1972 reversed insofar as appealed from, and defendants' motion for a protective order to vacate plaintiffs' notice of discovery and inspection granted. Appellants are granted one bill of $10 costs and disbursements to cover the appeals from both orders. In our opinion, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to grant the discovery and inspection of the insurance policy ( Gold v. Jacobi, 52 Misc.2d 491; Sashin v. Santelli Constr. Co., 69 Misc.2d 695). We note also that in Cummings v. Dominici ( 40 A.D.2d 765) we affirmed, without opinion, an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 3, 1972, which had denied the motion of the plaintiff therein, inter alia, to require disclosure of the policy limits of the defendants' insurance coverage. Gulotta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur; Hopkins. Acting P.J., concurs on constraint of Cummings v. Dominici ( 40 A.D.2d 765); BENJAMIN, J., dissents and votes to affirm.


Summaries of

Fierman v. Cirillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 4, 1972
40 A.D.2d 976 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

In Fierman (40 A.D.2d 976, supra) the record on appeal indicates that the action was one for personal injuries in negligence and the notice for discovery and inspection was served before all pretrial proceedings had been completed.

Summary of this case from Mosca v. Pensky
Case details for

Fierman v. Cirillo

Case Details

Full title:EDNA FIERMAN et al., Respondents, v. JOSEPH A. CIRILLO, an Infant, by His…

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

Date published: Dec 4, 1972

Citations

40 A.D.2d 976 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972)

Citing Cases

Mosca v. Pensky

No questions of privilege have been raised herein and an assertion that policy limits are legally privileged…

Shutt v. Pooley

There is nothing in the legislative history of subdivison (a) of CPLR 3101 which suggests that the…