Legal Opinion
Williamsville Central School District v. Cannon Partnership
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 22, 1990PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying, in toto, Celotex’s motion for a protective order. Plaintiff failed to establish that Celotex’s 2-ply or 4-ply specifications are sufficiently similar to the 730-c 3-ply specification which plaintiff alleges was defective (see, Wilcox v County of Onondaga, 132 AD2d 984, 985; Harmon v Ford Motor Co., 89 AD2d 800, 801; Johantgen v Hobart Mfg. Co., 64 AD2d 858, 859). Accordingly, discovery should be limited to documents concerning the nature…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Johantgen v. Hobart Manufacturing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
- Harmon v. Ford Motor Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Wilcox v. County of OnondagaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Moit v. Chesebro-Whitman Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Valet v. American Motors Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hodgson, Russ, Andrews, Woods & Goodyear, LLP v. Isolatek International Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- DeDivitis v. International Business Machines Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Galioto v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999