Legal Opinion

Boulware v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority

New York Supreme Court

Decided June 3, 1994PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Diane A. Lebedeff, J.

This motion cogently raises the issue of what remains of the privilege attaching to material prepared for litigation as applicable to surveillance videotapes and related memoranda following the recent amendment of CPLR 3101 (i) (L 1933, ch 574, § 1, eff Sept. 1, 1993), for the defendant Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority claims its surveillance film is material *436prepared for litigation and not generally discoverable.* The balance of the discovery arguments are addressed at the close of this decision.

I

The conflicting arguments as to whether a party…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. DiMichel v. South Buffalo Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1992
  2. Johnson Newspaper Corp. v. MelinoNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
  3. Sinicropi v. County of NassauAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
  4. Marigliano v. KrumholtzNew York Supreme Court · 1993
  5. DeCandia v. Hudson Waterways, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Rotundi v. Massachusetts Mutual Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
  2. Hicklen v. Broadway West Street AssociatesCivil Court of the City of New York · 1995
  3. Barnes v. New York State Thruway AuthorityNew York Court of Claims · 1998
  4. Jannello v. ParkerNew York Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Kosovsky v. ZahlNew York Supreme Court · 1995

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API