Legal Opinion

Lea v. New York City Transit Authority

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

Decided December 9, 2008PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

On appeal, defendant does not challenge the demands for its station supervisor’s log and deposition. Concerning the demands that do remain in issue on appeal, they are all palpably improper (see Haller v North Riverside Partners, 189 AD2d 615, 616 [1993], citing Alaten Co. v Solil Mgt. Corp., 181 AD2d 466 [1992]; cf. Sonsini v Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Diseases, 262 AD2d 185, 186-187 [1999]), and thus production thereof should not be compelled despite defendant’s failure to timely object thereto under CPLR 3122 (see Haller; Perez v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 271 AD2d 251 [2000]).…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Haller v. North Riverside PartnersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
  2. Perez v. Board of EducationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
  3. Alaten Co. v. Solil Management Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
  4. Sonsini v. Memorial Hospital for Cancer & DiseasesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Ford v. Rector, Church-Wardens, Vestrymen of Trinity ChurchAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API