Legal Opinion

Konrad v. 136 East 64th Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 10, 1994PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter Tom, J.), entered December 28, 1993, which granted defendants’ motion for a protective order by vacating plaintiff’s notice for discovery and inspection with leave to serve a proper notice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the challenged notice is unduly burdensome and should be vacated. While the recent amendment to CPLR 3120 eliminating the requirement that documents be designated "specifically” is applicable to our review of this matter (see, Pataki v Kiseda, 80 AD2d 100, 102), "a vast categorical demand for…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Pataki v. KisedaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Konrad v. 136 East 64th Street Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
  2. W.S.L.S.J. & I. Weinreb v. BogochAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
  3. Chai & Tantrakoon, Inc. v. Royal Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
  4. MBIA Insurace v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Thomas v. HolzbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996

2 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