Legal Opinion
Piezotronics v. Change
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided July 13, 1990PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Trial courts have broad discretion in supervising disclosure and, absent a clear abuse of that discretion, their determinations should not be disturbed (see, Matter of U.S. Pioneer Elees. Corp. [Nikko Elec. Corp.], 47 NY2d 914; Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406; Nitz v Prudential-Bache Sec., 102 AD2d 914, 915). We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s *830direction that certain product documents be produced for discovery in this action for infringement…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publishing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1968
- In re U. S. Pioneer Electronics Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Nitz v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Durham Medical Search, Inc. v. Physicians International Search, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
3Cited by4 opinions
- Kaplan v. HerbsteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Andruszewski v. CantelloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Kriesel v. May Department Stores Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Xerox Corp. v. Town of WebsterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994