Legal Opinion

Rodolitz v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance

New York Supreme Court

Decided July 7, 1975Published

1Opinion of the CourtPaul J. Widlitz, J.

Motion by defendant insurance company for an order pursuant to CPLR 3133 striking the interrogatories 9, 10, 11 and 13 as set forth in plaintiff’s amended demand is denied.

Items 9, 10, 11 and 13 of the amended demand concern the name, address, occupation and report of defendant’s expert or any independent expert from whom defendant has obtained a report as a result of the investigation of the property damage loss of $74,019.14. Defendant’s sole objection is that such information is privileged and not discoverable under Finegold v Lewis (22 AD2d 447) and Kandel v Tocher (22 AD2d 513) because…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kandel v. TocherAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
  2. Finegold v. LewisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
  3. Welch v. Globe Indemnity Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1966
  4. Collins v. Jamestown Mutual InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1968

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

Powered by the Exa API