Legal Opinion
Gottfried v. Maizel
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 22, 2009PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*1061Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in only partially granting the plaintiffs motion to compel disclosure. The defendant could not be compelled to produce records, documents, or information that were not in his possession, or did not exist (see Argo v Queens Surface Corp., 58 AD3d 656 [2009]; Maffai v County of Suffolk, 36 AD3d 765 [2007]; Sagiv v Gamache, 26 AD3d 368, 369 [2006]), or that were privileged (see Logue v Velez, 92 NY2d 13 [1998]). Contrary to the plaintiffs arguments, the preliminary conference order dated…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Logue v. VelezNew York Court of Appeals · 1998
- Sagiv v. GamacheAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Argo v. Queens Surface Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Maffai v. County of SuffolkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
3Cited by5 opinions
- Deer Park Associates v. Town of BabylonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Smith v. County of NassauAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Freely v. DonnenfeldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Lopez v. Bell Sports, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019
- Tanriverdi v. United Skates of Am., Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2018