40 Cited authorities

  1. Allen v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co.

    21 N.Y.2d 403 (N.Y. 1968)   Cited 1,622 times
    Holding that "[t]he words, "material and necessary", are . . . to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity"
  2. Andon v. 302-304 Mott Street Associates

    94 N.Y.2d 740 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 330 times
    In Andon, the defendant's expert failed to identify or attach the scientific studies he relied upon to support his opinions on the significance of maternal IQ in evaluating lead paint injury causation (Andon, 94 NY2d at 746).
  3. VOOM HD Holdings LLC v. EchoStar Satellite L.L.C.

    93 A.D.3d 33 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 133 times   6 Legal Analyses
    In Voom HD Holdings LLC v. EchoStar Satellite LLC., 939 N.Y.S.2d 321 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012), the court applied the Zubulake standard of preservation, noting that it is "widely adopted by federal and state courts," and "harmonious with New York precedent in the traditional discovery context...."
  4. O'Neill v. Oakgrove Constr

    71 N.Y.2d 521 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 154 times
    Recognizing a qualified privilege arising under the federal and the state constitutions for non-confidential materials
  5. Strong v. City of N.Y.

    112 A.D.3d 15 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 58 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Strong, the plaintiff demonstrated that the City had negligently failed to take active steps to halt the process of automatically deleting audio recordings, despite having notice of impending litigation for which a specific audio recording would be relevant (id.).
  6. Mann v. Cooper Tire Co.

    33 A.D.3d 24 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 68 times
    Holding that scope of discovery in tread separation case should include "documents relating generally to the tread separation defect or problem" because otherwise the defendant would not produce "documents probative on the issues of notice, defectiveness and dangerousness"
  7. Gjonaj v. Otis

    38 A.D.3d 384 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 51 times

    No. 564. March 22, 2007. Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered December 7, 2005, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when the freight elevator in which plaintiff, a porter, was riding suddenly dropped several floors, granted motions by defendants building owners and elevator service contractor and its parent company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Antin, Ehrlich Epstein, P.C., New York

  8. Duluc v. AC & L Food Corp.

    119 A.D.3d 450 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 34 times

    2014-07-10 Mayra DULUC, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. AC & L FOOD CORP., et al., Defendants–Respondents. Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum, Lake Success (Marshall D. Sweetbaum of counsel), for appellant. LeClair Ryan, P.C., New York (Michael J. Case of counsel), for respondents. TOM Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum, Lake Success (Marshall D. Sweetbaum of counsel), for appellant. LeClair Ryan, P.C., New York (Michael J. Case of counsel), for respondents. TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, SWEENY, SAXE, FREEDMAN, JJ. Order, Supreme Court, Bronx

  9. Ahroner v. Israel Discount Bank

    79 A.D.3d 481 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 39 times   3 Legal Analyses

    No. 3823. December 7, 2010. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered July 13, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from, granted spoliation sanctions to the extent of granting plaintiff an adverse inference instruction at trial with respect to e-mails on defendant Bastante's hard drive, permitting plaintiff to seek a missing documents charge with respect to certain "employee lists" at the time of trial, and directing defendants to reimburse plaintiff for the amount he paid

  10. Palermo Mason Construction, Inc. v. Aark Holding Corp.

    300 A.D.2d 460 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 50 times

    2002-00535 Submitted November 13, 2002. December 16, 2002. In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraudulent conveyance and breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), dated November 30, 2001, as denied that branch of its motion which was to compel the defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., to comply with certain discovery requests pursuant to CPLR 3124. McCarthy, Fingar, Donovan, Drazen

  11. s 600.10 - (Repealed)

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 600.10   Cited 9 times

    RESEARCH REFERENCES AND PRACTICE AIDS: 10A C-W2d, Appeals in General §§ 70:155, 70:198, 70:205, 70:211. 22 CRR-NY 600.10 Current through July 31, 2018