16 Cited authorities

Allen v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co.
21 N.Y.2d 403 (N.Y. 1968) Cited 1,968 times 1 Legal Analyses
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"
Gibbs v. St. Barnabas Hosp
16 N.Y.3d 74 (N.Y. 2010) Cited 304 times
In Gibbs (16 NY3d 74), where plaintiff's counsel violated a conditional preclusion order by failing to supply a bill of particulars and did not establish good cause for the delay and a meritorious claim, we held that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to order preclusion.
Andon v. 302-304 Mott Street Associates
94 N.Y.2d 740 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 402 times
Holding that the "Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion in holding that [a doctor's] affidavit — on which defendants' request was based — was insufficient to justify compelling plaintiff-mother to take an IQ test"
VOOM HD Holdings LLC v. EchoStar Satellite L.L.C.
93 A.D.3d 33 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) Cited 206 times 7 Legal Analyses
Finding that destroyed records were relevant when they were from a “vital time period” in relationship to a breach of contract dispute
Strong v. City of N.Y.
112 A.D.3d 15 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013) Cited 75 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.).
Byam v. City of New York
68 A.D.3d 798 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) Cited 34 times
No. 2008-01089. December 8, 2009. In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution, etc., the plaintiff's appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated November 28, 2007, as denied their motion to strike the defendants' answer pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3). Rubert Gross, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Soledad Rubert of counsel), for appellants. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Julian
Petrilli v. Federated
40 A.D.3d 1339 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) Cited 33 times
No. 501438. May 24, 2007. Spain, J. Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Lebous, J.), entered July 19, 2006 in Broome County, which, inter alia, denied a motion by defendant May Department Stores Company to set aside a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff, and (2) from a judgment of said court, entered August 3, 2006 in Broome County, upon said verdict. Petrone Petrone, P.C., Syracuse (David H. Walsh of counsel), for appellants. Paniccia Beck, L.L.P., Binghamton (Alfred Paniccia Jr.
Gibbs v. St. Barnabas Hospital
61 A.D.3d 599 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) Cited 7 times
April 30, 2009. Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered January 16, 2008, which granted the motion of defendant Vinces to enforce a conditional order of preclusion to the extent of directing plaintiff to pay $500 as costs for his delay in complying with discovery, affirmed, without costs. Before: Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ. The law strongly prefers that matters be decided on their merits ( Catarine v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 290 AD2d 213, 215). Accordingly
Mendelowitz v. Xerox Corp.
169 A.D.2d 300 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991) Cited 24 times
In Mendelowitz, where the plaintiff's decedent allegedly had been exposed to asbestos from his use of the defendant's copying machines, we granted the plaintiff discovery only of those health claims by the defendant's workers that alleged "exposure to asbestos used in the manufacture of copying machines" (id. at 307-308).
O'Brien v. Clark Equipment Company
25 A.D.3d 958 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006) Cited 7 times
98173. January 19, 2006. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Cannizzaro, J.), entered February 15, 2005 in Albany County, which partially granted plaintiff's motion to strike certain defendants' pleadings. Clauss Sabatini, New York City (Steve S. Efron of counsel), for appellant and defendant and third-party plaintiff-appellant. Linnan Fallon, L.L.P., Albany (Nicholas E. Tishler, Niskayuna, of counsel), for Lisa M. O'Brien, respondent. Friedman, Hirschen, Miller Campito, P.C., Schenectady

16 Cited authorities

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"

In Gibbs (16 NY3d 74), where plaintiff's counsel violated a conditional preclusion order by failing to supply a bill of particulars and did not establish good cause for the delay and a meritorious claim, we held that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to order preclusion.

Holding that the "Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion in holding that [a doctor's] affidavit — on which defendants' request was based — was insufficient to justify compelling plaintiff-mother to take an IQ test"

Finding that destroyed records were relevant when they were from a “vital time period” in relationship to a breach of contract dispute

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.).